PRIVATE BUSINESS

University Of Manchester Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Mental Health (Cannabis)

Bill Tynan: What research he has commissioned on possible links between the use of cannabis and mental health problems.

Rosie Winterton: Since 2000, the Department of Health has commissioned five research projects focusing on cannabis use problems and the dual diagnosis of mental health problems and substance misuse. We also continue to monitor the worldwide research and to draw on the advice of a range of expert advisers to inform our policy.

Bill Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the current research programmes, but she will recognise that other countries such as Sweden, the USA and Holland have established a link between mental health and cannabis use. Does she agree that our knowledge of the long-term effects of cannabis use is very poor, and will she therefore start a comprehensive research programme, funded by the Government, to ensure that we are not building up a crisis for the future?

Rosie Winterton: I assure my hon. Friend that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs keeps the evidence of harm from all controlled drugs under constant review. There is evidence that cannabis, like any other drug, can cause short-term paranoia and psychosis, but at present there is no clear evidence that schizophrenia, for example, is caused by using cannabis. However, the advisory council keeps that under review.

Ann Winterton: The United Kingdom's leading scientists know, because of the research undertaken here and elsewhere in the world, that the use of cannabis does in fact bring on psychotic effects and cause schizophrenia later in life. Will the Minister concede that the policy of declassifying cannabis, which has sent out mixed messages to the young, will exacerbate the problem, causing tremendous personal problems to young people and great cost to the individuals concerned, their families, the national health service and society at large?

Rosie Winterton: I assure the hon. Lady that the effects of cannabis use are closely monitored and that the evidence is examined by the advisory council, which is independent. Reclassification took place only as a result of the advice received from that council, which continues to keep the matter under review.

John Mann: Australia and New Zealand adopt a policy similar to ours on the classification of cannabis, but the research from their national addiction centres says that skunk, in particular, creates psychosis. Why are we not copying those good Commonwealth friends, which adopt a similar policing policy, and learning lessons from their health messages?

Rosie Winterton: We certainly look at all the evidence. There is an independent advisory council to do that and we are also investing in drug treatment areas. There has been an increase of 101 per cent. in the amount of money going into drug treatment facilities, which is now £260 million, and the work force has increased up to the target by 2008 of 9,000. As I have said, we keep the matter under review, but we want to ensure at the same time that we provide proper facilities for treating people who suffer from substance misuse.

Tim Loughton: If the Minister keeps all the evidence under constant watch, she must acknowledge the research that shows that up to 80 per cent. of all psychotic cases in inner cities in this country report a history of cannabis use, and that people's use of cannabis as teenagers can make them seven times more vulnerable to developing psychosis, delusional episodes or manic depression. There are also links with the exacerbation of schizophrenia, which already costs the NHS £1 billion. Why, therefore, when the Government decided to reclassify cannabis earlier this year and spent £1 million advertising the fact, was not a penny spent on highlighting the risks of the link between cannabis and mental illness, and why has the number of drug advisers in our schools been contracting?

Rosie Winterton: It is certainly not true that we do not highlight the harmful effects of cannabis. The extremely successful "Frank" campaign has particularly targeted young people, pointing out to them the serious effects of cannabis.
	There is evidence that cannabis, like any other drug, can lead to short-term paranoia and psychosis, but there is no clear evidence that schizophrenia, for example, is caused by cannabis use. The issue is kept under constant review and monitored by an independent advisory council.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the use of cannabis does not necessarily lead to the use of other drugs, it enhances their use because it provides access to them? Is it not time that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said, we established a proper inquiry into the use of cannabis, the reactions to it and where such use leads?

Rosie Winterton: I assure my hon. Friend that we monitor the effects of cannabis, like any other controlled drug, through the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and we will not stop doing so. We look at the evidence and the research, and we receive independent advice from the council.

Road Accidents

Bob Russell: What the estimated cost to the national health service was of treating those injured in road crashes in the last year for which figures are available.

John Hutton: The national health service has not been asked to identify separately the costs of treating road traffic accident victims. However, where such a patient receives compensation the NHS can reclaim the treatment cost from insurers. Last year, £105 million was recovered for the national health service in that way.

Bob Russell: While I am grateful to the Minister for that partial answer, in the interests of joined-up government, might it be worth while trying to establish exactly how much the public purse is funding the consequences of road crashes? May I also suggest that he discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Transport and with the Chancellor the Exchequer how investing in making road safety a top priority might lead to a reduction in the burden that road crashes and casualties taken to accident and emergency departments place on the NHS?

John Hutton: We will certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although we need to strike the appropriate balance between that point and avoiding imposing additional bureaucracy and burdens on the national health service. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are committed to reducing the number of road accident events and, in fact, the number of such events is falling.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will probably be aware of the large number of accidents that involve motor cyclists. That is a particular problem in my constituency, which has beautiful countryside where boy racers and others perhaps somewhat older do not exercise good behaviour on the roads. Has his Department discussed the matter with the insurance industry to try to improve motoring standards? It could be argued that that is a primary health care issue because, if motorists—particularly motor cyclists—behaved themselves in the first place, they would not end up in hospital.

John Hutton: It is very important that the Government do what they can to improve safety on our roads. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is fully committed to doing that and we in the national health service will do whatever we can to support the work that he is undertaking.

Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned compensation and repayments to the NHS in such cases, but what consideration are the Government giving to repayments to the NHS in cases of proven negligence—for example, when it is proven that a person has wilfully ignored a speed limit and a crash has resulted? Is there a way of claiming the money back from such individuals or their insurance companies, or—even better—of extending such a scheme to those who assist and promote the denigration of speed limits?

John Hutton: If an accident results in injury to an individual and the NHS provides treatment for that individual, statutory provision exists to allow the NHS to recover the costs. We have recently legislated to extend the scope of that scheme to include other types of injuries.

Foundation Hospitals

Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the progress of outstanding applications for foundation hospital status.

John Reid: Applicants for NHS foundation trust status in wave 1a are due to submit applications by mid-June for my approval. I expect to take a decision shortly after publication in July of the NHS performance ratings. I approved 25 wave 1 applications earlier this year. Ten applicants were authorised on 1 April and the independent regulator will make his own decision on whether to grant authorisations for the remainder.

Eric Illsley: My right hon. Friend will know that Barnsley district general hospital has applied for foundation status to take effect from October this year, but unfortunately the hospital now faces a financial deficit of around £3 million. To make matters even worse, the primary care trust also faces a deficit of £15 million and has difficulty providing any further financial assistance to the hospital, which has itself undertaken a recovery programme to try to balance the budget. Can he indicate whether the financial requirements for trust status will take account of those deficits? Can the Government take any further action to ensure that the foundation status application will go ahead from October?

John Reid: Lest anyone should have gained the false impression from the details provided by my hon. Friend that the Barnsley trust has somehow been starved of funding over the past few years, let me remind him and the House that, in fact, Barnsley PCT received an increase in funding of more than 31 per cent. over the past three years. That is much higher than the national minimum. Like every other organisation—not just every trust—in the NHS, the PCT has to ensure that it achieves financial balance. Every pound wasted in the NHS means that someone dies earlier than they should or that someone lives longer in pain. Of course, when it comes to foundation trusts, we are aware of the huge benefits that foundation status will bring to local providers of health care, so there is the most rigorous scrutiny—not just by myself, but by the regulator—of financial and other matters.

Marion Roe: Does the Secretary of State believe that the fact that many trusts are dropping or deferring their applications for foundation status because they do not understand the financial implications of the new system suggests that foundation trusts are unworkable and burdensome?

John Reid: The answer to both questions is no. Trusts are not deferring in any large numbers and, secondly, applications are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the independent regulator, whose background, as the hon. Lady may know, includes not only knowledge on the medical side, but knowledge of the retail and banking sector. Above all, the regulator is well versed in assessing the financial requirements necessary to embark on freedoms for the frontline of NHS foundation trusts, which will result in far better, more sensitive, quicker and more efficient service to patients. Surely that is what we all want—more patients having more treatment, more quickly and of greater quality than ever before.

David Hinchliffe: Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps taken by the Government to encourage greater membership of foundation trusts, in view of the disappointing figures on membership of the first wave? On public involvement in health, can he clarify what is happening with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health? It has been suggested that it will be either abolished or merged with the NHS Appointments Commission. Can he give an assurance that in any future arrangements for patient involvement, the independence of the various bodies concerned with patients will be defended and retained?

John Reid: There were three points there. The first was about the openness to registration of members of foundation trusts. Of course, the lists do not close and they build up over a period of time. In Barnsley, for example, the trust has recruited more than 2,000 patient and public members. We would all like to see 20,000, but nevertheless, that is 2,000 more people involved in the local trust than have ever been involved before. Secondly, as far as the future of patient involvement and our commitment to it is concerned, I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee that we will remain committed. Thirdly, with regard to the arm's length bodies, while we retain our commitment to involvement and to fulfilling their functions, I am going to bear down hard on the number of such bodies and organisations and the amount of money that goes to them. I have authorised a 50 per cent. cut in the number of arm's length bodies, with a 25 per cent. cut in the number of personnel in them. I have also authorised £500 million being taken from them, which will be put into front-line services. On top of all the other increases, another £500 million will be invested in nurses, doctors and better treatment.

Richard Taylor: The Secretary of State has promised an independent review of foundation trusts. Will he confirm that the review will be held and that it will report after waves 1a and 1b have taken place?

John Reid: Yes, the review will go ahead and it will be honest, independent and objective. If it concludes that we have made mistakes or that there are shortcomings in the foundation trust idea or status, we will amend the errors. Equally, however, it might conclude that we have not extended enough freedoms to the front line of NHS foundation trusts. In that case, we will act on those recommendations.

Peter Mandelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment felt when Hartlepool's general hospital failed to gain immediate foundation trust status and that the Tees health review may put a question mark over the hospital's long-term future? Will he reassure my constituents that that will not happen and that the town will retain a full and proper hospital service, for their benefit and for that of people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings)?

John Reid: My right hon. Friend is right to say that a review is under way. In respect of the application for foundation trust status, I shall say only that an initial failure does not mean that reapplication cannot be made in the relatively near future. I do not wish to prejudge matters, but I can tell him that Hartlepool will still have a full and proper hospital service after the review has taken place.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that, during the passage through the House last year of the Bill establishing foundation trusts, the Opposition said that all NHS hospitals needed genuine freedom if the best service was to be delivered. We said that, without that freedom, we would get a two-tier system. However, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has told the Health Select Committee that £127 million will be available this year to compensate primary care trusts and foundation trusts for the introduction of payment by results, and that the Department has £104 million in capital to support the prudential borrowing limits of first-wave foundation trusts. That adds up to £231 million and to a two-tier system. How will the right hon. Gentleman defend that to his colleagues and to the Opposition? We said that we wanted a single tier of genuinely free NHS hospitals to deliver the best service to patients.

John Reid: I am deeply moved by the hon. Gentleman's concern about my discussions with my Back-Bench colleagues. I am sure that they will be deeply moved as well by his concern about the two-tier system that could develop. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, in case he has missed the fact in his young life, that there has been a two-tier system in this country for 60 years. One tier has been the NHS, whose patients were treated with disdain by the previous Conservative Government for 20 years. Another tier was available for those who had the money, which allowed them the quick access to hospital care in the private sector that the Opposition have always supported.
	NHS foundation trust status will be allocated over the next few years to every hospital. As a result, every hospital and trust in the country will have far more resources in terms of money, doctors, nurses, equipment and buildings, and far more power to meet patients' needs. However, I am far too much of a gentleman to point out that the hon. Gentleman was the first to tell me that he supported his hospital's application for foundation trust status.

NHS Staff (Assaults)

Helen Jones: What steps are being taken to reduce assaults on NHS staff; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Ladyman: In December 2003, the NHS security management service published its strategy to make the NHS a safer place in which to work. The strategy has a comprehensive range of measures to tackle violence against NHS staff. These include the United Kingdom's largest ever training programme to equip NHS staff to deal with violent situations, a national reporting system for physical assaults and the establishment of a legal protection unit to work with the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

Helen Jones: I welcome the initiatives that the Government have already taken in the area, but will my hon. Friend carefully consider the position of those NHS staff who work in clients' homes or in isolated units? What more can be done to protect them and equip them to cope with any dangerous situations that might arise in the course of their work?

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Top-quality staff doing a top-quality job deserve a top-quality working environment, and that includes those who work in isolated areas. We are doing several things. Such staff will have the same access as any other members of staff to the advice of security management personnel and the same training in conflict resolution. They will also have additional services available, including technological assistance for lone workers that will allow them to report when they face difficulties, wherever they are when they are attacked.

Nigel Evans: It is staggering to all of us to think that a patient would ever strike NHS staff, but it does happen. It happens increasingly on Friday and Saturday nights when patients are in accident and emergency, high on drugs or drunk. Can the Minister liaise with his Home Office colleagues to ensure that hospitals and accident and emergency units get community office support and police support to protect hospital workers? Will he send a message out clearly to anyone who dares strike a hospital worker that it is the quickest way of getting from a hospital ward to a prison cell?

Stephen Ladyman: That is absolutely right. We must have zero tolerance of all forms of violence. We must also ensure that proper security advice is available to all hospital departments, including accident and emergency departments, wherever they are and whatever night it is. We must ensure that we deal with every single attack on an NHS staff member with the utmost vigour and that we prosecute such attacks. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that an antisocial behaviour order was recently taken out against an individual that bans him from NHS premises anywhere in the country, and that is the sort of action that we need.
	I have to say that we also need to start ensuring in our political debates that people appreciate that they should respect NHS staff and that entails an obligation on the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to stop bad-mouthing NHS staff and ensure that everybody is aware of the work that they do.

Joan Humble: Further to my hon. Friend's statement about training, can he outline the extent of that training? Will it cover all NHS staff and will it cover both conflict resolution—to reduce the occasions on which assaults may take place—and how to deal with assaults when they happen?

Stephen Ladyman: Different types of training will be available. For example, every health body will have to nominate an individual to be responsible for advising on security matters. Those individuals will receive very specific and detailed training in such matters. Individual staff members will get conflict resolution training of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers and we estimate that at least 750,000 people will have access to that training. It will be thorough and it will be available to everybody.

Health Investment (Staffordshire)

Paul Farrelly: What investment is being made in the national health service in north Staffordshire.

John Reid: For the current financial year, 2004–05, the four primary care trusts in north Staffordshire have been allocated a total of £478 million, an increase of £41.4 million, or 9.49 per cent., since the previous year. For the next financial year, 2005–06, the increase will be a further 9.06 per cent., taking the total allocation to £521.4 million.

Paul Farrelly: The NHS is indeed making great strides in north Staffordshire, including a brand new hospital, a new medical school at Keele university and brand new health centres across the whole area. However, after the next election, will it be the Government's policy to continue to invest in that way in the NHS, in north Staffordshire and across the country, or to drive the NHS out of existence within five years?

John Reid: My hon. Friend makes the point that there is a need for long-term and sustained investment in the national health service to make up for the 20 years of under-investment before this Government came to office. We will continue that investment at the present level for another four years. We will not return to the days of under-investment and starvation of our hospitals with the previous number of nurses, nor do we intend to charge patients to allow them to jump the queues on the basis of how much money they have in their pockets to contribute towards doing so. The degree of power and choice for NHS patients should depend not on the size of their wallets, but on exactly what their medical needs are. The Labour party will always defend that principle.

Tim Yeo: I pay a warm tribute to the staff at the North Staffordshire hospital, but will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite their best efforts, three out of 10 out-patients at that hospital wait longer than 13 weeks for an appointment? Will he confirm that that hospital has under-achieved in readmitting patients whose operations were cancelled for non-clinical reasons? Will he confirm that, in the past year, MRSA rates have increased at the North Staffordshire hospital? In that respect, will he confirm that the problems that they face are typical of the whole NHS—that more operations are cancelled than in 1997, that the number of hospital-acquired infections is much higher than in 1997 and that far more people are waiting far longer for serious treatments, such as radiotherapy, than before? Is it not the case that, under Labour, administrators are being hired at three times the rate at which doctors are being hired? It is no surprise that, under Labour, taxpayers have paid for a 37 per cent. rise in spending and seen a 5 per cent. rise in activity.

John Reid: Five minutes ago, Opposition Members talked about their affection for NHS staff. Now, once again, they brand them all as useless bureaucrats. That is the nature of the Opposition's commitment to the NHS. I cannot confirm any of the points that the hon. Gentleman made about North Staffordshire hospital. I can confirm, however, that, under this Government, that hospital has had two new theatres, additional critical care beds, a ward for surgical patients, a doubling in its capacity for cardiothoracic surgery with a new theatre and critical care beds for that purpose, a new catheter laboratory and a dramatic reduction in diagnostic waiting times for cardiac patients and that more than 90 per cent. of patients now receive accident and emergency care within the world standard of four hours. He talks about the national picture, which is represented there, but we have 67,500 more nurses, 14,000 more doctors, the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS, a 10 per cent. cut in premature deaths from cancer, and a 23 per cent. cut in premature deaths from cardiac heart disease. All that would be ruined if that lot ever got into power again.

Dennis Turner: The information that we have just heard regarding north Staffordshire is very good news for the people of that area and for the people of Wolverhampton, because North Staffordshire hospital is very close to my constituency and the whole of Wolverhampton. Irrespective of the Opposition's carping, I congratulate our Government on that investment. May I add that we have also had major investment in Wolverhampton? We have a state-of-the-art, 21st-century heart and lung unit ready to be opened as I speak. I want the Secretary of State to assure me that it will operate to full capacity, when we have the official opening.

John Reid: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I think from memory that there is a new cardiac centre at Wolverhampton, but of course there will be more. The project in the North Staffordshire hospital, which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) forgot to mention, involves another £350 million to develop a new acute hospital on the site of the city's general hospital and a new community hospital in north Stoke. All that, of course, is representative of the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS. When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues left office, more than half the buildings in the NHS were older than the NHS. If the Government, by grace of the electorate, survive another term, by the end of it, almost half the buildings in the NHS will have been built by this Labour Government—something to be proud of.

John Redwood: How much extra money could North Staffordshire hospital get for its health service if it had foundation status; and what would be the extra costs of the bureaucracy and corporate governance of a foundation hospital?

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands foundation status. Such hospitals will not get any extra money. What they will get is greater freedom to deploy their money without constantly having to obtain ratification and permission from Ministers and bureaucrats in Whitehall.

Delayed Discharges

Ann Coffey: What action he is taking to reduce delayed discharges.

Stephen Ladyman: In January 2004, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 introduced a financial incentive to avoid delayed discharges. That is supported by the delayed discharges grant. The total number of patients delayed in an acute hospital bed on any one day is now about 2,900—a reduction of nearly 60 per cent. since September 2001.

Ann Coffey: The figures from my local hospital, Stepping Hill, indicate that the policy has been a great success in relation to acute wards. Essentially, that is because it has led to much better co-operation between local health and social services. However, delays in discharge are now occurring in intermediate and rehabilitation beds. Will the Minister consider making delays in discharge from non-acute beds subject to the same financial penalties as delays in discharge from acute beds, so that there is effective local co-operation for all discharges?

Stephen Ladyman: The delayed discharges reimbursement system has been such a huge success and has driven down delayed discharges to such a remarkable extent that, to be frank, it would be madness if we were not looking very closely at the suggestion that we extend it, not only to intermediate care facilities, but to mental health facilities. We have started that work and planning, and we shall make announcements to the House as soon as possible.

Paul Burstow: Does the Minister agree that in planning hospital discharges, it is important to ensure that the rules governing eligibility for free NHS continuing care are applied consistently and fairly across the country? Why has it taken the Government so long to begin to get to grips with the fact that 28 different sets of rules are applied in entirely different ways, with the result that people are, in effect, subject to a postcode lottery in relation to eligibility for free continuing care—care that should be available to them on the basis of their need, not of their means?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman might at least have started his question by pointing out that he was entirely wrong about the 2003 Act, which is now saving 1.5 million bed nights a year—equivalent to eight district hospitals—and which he is committed to repealing should the electorate ever be foolish enough to put his party into government. He was wrong from the start and he is wrong now. As for NHS continuing care, now before anyone is discharged from hospital they must go through the single assessment process, which includes consideration for NHS continuing care. For the first time, we will know whether anyone is entitled to such care before they are discharged.

Meg Munn: The legislation is making a real difference to reducing delayed discharges and improving the discharge process in Sheffield. Does my hon. Friend recall that, during debate on the Bill, the Opposition spokesperson referred to it as a "nasty and flawed measure" and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said that it "put beds before patients"? Is not the truth that the measure puts patients' needs first and only the Labour Government are prepared to take the action that puts patients first?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every extra day that an older person in particular spends in an acute setting when they no longer need to be there makes it less likely that they will be able to retain their independence and return home, which is where most of them want to be. Conservative party dogma is that ending up in a care home is the inevitable consequence of old age, but we want to maintain people's independence.

Simon Burns: If one strips all the spin and gloss from the Minister's words, one can see that the Government are fiddling the figures, basically by categorising more and more beds as intermediate and placing patients in them to meet their political targets. If his policy is working so well, why has the number of people receiving domiciliary care been reduced by 2 per cent. in the past year and by 10 per cent. over the past three years? Surely, more should be done to make sure that patients whose discharge is delayed receive appropriate domiciliary care after hospital, rather than being sidelined in an intermediate ward.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is another person who was entirely wrong about the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act, and has been made to look foolish for preaching doom and gloom. He said that the success of the scheme is entirely due to the roll- out of intermediate care beds, but in the six months since the shadow scheme came into effect we have reduced delayed discharges by another 1,000. How can he tie that purely to intermediate care beds, unless he thinks that we have suddenly magicked up tens of thousands of such beds around the country? The fact of the matter is that he and his party would not match our proposed spending—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dave Watts: Does the Minister agree that delays are partly caused by lack of funds in social services departments? Does he also agree that the massive increase in health funding has not been matched by increases in social services funding, and will he look at that problem?

Stephen Ladyman: In fact, since 1997, the average increase in personal social services funding by the Government has been 30 per cent. above the level of inflation. Another 6 per cent. real-terms increase is promised for next year, so we are making money available and making sure that it is being used to provide intensive home care. Contrary to what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of people receiving intensive care at home—people who would otherwise be forced into care homes.

NHS Racism

Parmjit Dhanda: If he will make a statement on the findings of Sir John Blofeld's report into racism in the NHS.

John Reid: Our formal response to the Blofeld report into the death of David Bennett will be published in July this year as an integral part of our action plan to deliver race equality in mental health services. While the detail of our response must therefore wait, I want to make it clear that racism and discrimination will not be tolerated in the national health service. Our commitment to change will be through action, not complacent words. These are real issues for people from black and ethnic minority communities, and they will be addressed.

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will welcome the remarks made by Sir John Blofeld during his inquiry into the death of David Bennett. One of his findings was that black men are six times more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white men. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sir Nigel Crisp, chief executive of the NHS, on his decision to appoint a director in the NHS with responsibility for ensuring equality for staff and patients alike? Does he share my concern about comments by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that such an appointment would be a waste of money?

John Reid: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sir Nigel Crisp, who is not only permanent secretary to my Department but chief executive of the national health service, on the robust leadership that he has shown, particularly on this question. This week of all weeks, when we are remembering D-day and the liberation of the European continent from the worst and most poisonous racist regime, we should remember the contribution made to the NHS by people from black, ethnic and coloured backgrounds. I must correct myself, because earlier I said that there were 14,000 extra doctors since we came to power. I apologise for my mistake, as the figure is 19,000, and many of those doctors are from black and ethnic backgrounds. It is very disappointing indeed that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) should attack the appointment of a national director on equality and human rights. On the issue of tackling racism, the Conservative party is at best confused and at worst open to the accusation of complacency.

Anne Picking: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about tackling racism in the health service. We have not tackled it well enough and it is still prevalent. My particular concern is how staff are treated by patients. By virtue of being ill, patients are almost excused for being racist. That is not acceptable and should not be tolerated.

John Reid: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend said. I know that over many years, before she came into Parliament and afterwards, she has been involved in fighting to make sure that we have public services free of racism, institutional or otherwise. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may have been perturbed by my remarks, but I made them in all sincerity. When we appointed a national director for equality and human rights, the words that were used by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman were that that appointment was "a misuse of resources". It is no good using fine words about combating racism and being committed to equality, and willing the ends but not being prepared to put in the means. If the Opposition will the ends publicly and say that they are committed to them, but then attack the means of tackling the problem, they will be criticised.

Tam Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State recognise—I do not doubt that he does—that the Blofeld committee report has wide implications? Will there be a programme of action, and along what lines will action be taken?

John Reid: Yes, indeed. I made it plain that this would not be a matter of words for us. There is a robust programme of action across the national health service led by the chief executive of the NHS and the permanent secretary at the Department of Health under my political leadership. It will include a new national director for equality and human rights. A practical programme of action has been outlined already and will be carried through.
	In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, I have met many people who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances as a result of the loss of a loved one. In the case of the Bennett inquiry, I met the family and the solicitor representing the family, and I found their sincerity, their profundity on the issue and their contribution to what we are trying to achieve to be first rate. I hope we will continue to work with the family, as well as with others.

Cancer Screening

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the cancers for which he proposes to introduce NHS screening programmes.

Melanie Johnson: We are committed to introducing new screening programmes where it is clear that they will save lives. We will introduce a national bowel cancer screening programme which is currently under development, and a prostate cancer screening programme if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently developed.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the expansion of screening programmes, but can the Minister be a little more precise about nationwide screening in respect of bowel cancer, which kills 17,000 people a year? When does she expect to be able to roll out a nationwide screening programme, and when do the Government expect that sufficient staff will be trained in endoscopy to enable such a programme to be fully effective?

Melanie Johnson: We have run the first phase of a screening trial based in Nottinghamshire and we are reviewing the results. We are in the second phase of that trial, and as part of it we need to consider aspects such as hard-to-reach groups. We anticipate having some results by 2006–07. In the meantime we are making £9 million available over three years to train more GPs, nurses, surgeons and gastroenterologists to meet the rising demand for endoscopy—that is a key issue—and we have established three national and seven regional centres to train medical staff in endoscopy.

Anne Campbell: I, too, welcome the expansion of the screening programmes, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a problem at the GP level, as GPs have difficulty in deciding whether patients require routine or urgent referrals, particularly in some of the rarer cancers? Will she ensure that better guidance is given to GPs about these matters?

Melanie Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that that distinction is important. Some 99 per cent. of patients with suspected cancer are urgently referred to specialists and seen within a fortnight, and premature deaths from cancer have fallen by 10 per cent. since 1995–97. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must continue to work with GPs and the royal colleges on improving awareness, particularly of those cancers on which it is more difficult for GPs to decide whether to make an urgent referral.

Nick Gibb: The Minister will also be aware of success in screening for aortic aneurisms—a pilot scheme is currently being run in west Sussex, and it saves hundreds of lives. When will she announce her decision whether to expand that pilot scheme nation wide?

Melanie Johnson: In due course.

Hip Replacements

Siobhain McDonagh: What the latest estimate is of the cost of a hip replacement paid for by Merton and Sutton primary care trust in (a) the South West London Elective Orthopaedic centre and (b) the private sector.

John Hutton: The latest national figures indicate that the average cost incurred by the NHS in conducting a primary hip replacement operation is £4,660, and that the average cost outside the NHS is £6,848. South West London Elective Orthopaedic centre forms part of the Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, where a primary hip replacement cost £5,865 last year.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He knows that the South West London Elective Orthopaedic centre is the largest orthopaedic centre in Europe, that the Queen opened it only three months ago and that it has the capacity to conduct 3,150 hip and knee replacements this year. Will he do everything he can to ensure that it is used to full capacity to benefit people in south-west London, and in my constituency, Mitcham and Morden, in particular?

John Hutton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The centre currently runs with 65 per cent. occupancy, and that figure is expected to rise to 85 per cent. during the course of this year, which is a sensible way in which to build up capacity. I agree with my hon. Friend that the centre is an important new asset for the NHS, and I was present when Her Majesty the Queen opened it. It is a brilliant investment, and I am sure that it will help further to reduce waiting times for patients in my hon. Friend's constituency. Unlike the proposals from Conservative Front Benchers, the service provided by the centre is available to all NHS patients, none of whom needs to make a top-up payment or an additional payment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Paul Marsden to ask Question 11.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Hepatitis C

Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her policy on the treatment of hepatitis C.

Melanie Johnson: In recent years, increasingly effective treatments for chronic hepatitis C have become available. In January 2004, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended a combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe chronic hepatitis C, which successfully clears the infection in around 55 per cent. of patients.

Peter Luff: My own father died of hepatitis C when I was eight years old—he probably contracted the disease in Palestine during the first world war—so the Minister will understand my personal grudge against the disease, and my concern for the 250,000 people in England alone who have the disease and do not know it. Why are the Government not showing more urgency in dealing with the looming hepatitis C crisis? Why, for example, does the advisory group on hepatitis website state this morning that the agenda and minutes of meetings
	"will be available starting with the meeting due to be held on the 8th October 2003"?
	More importantly, why is the action plan, the publication of which was promised by the end of 2002, still not available?

Melanie Johnson: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is particularly passionate about the subject. I shall correct one figure that he gave: we estimate that about 200,000 people in England, 0.4 per cent. of the population, are infected with hepatitis C—in some cases, the infection clears spontaneously. On current action, we have, as I said, improved the drug treatments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Health will publish a hepatitis C action plan, which will highlight the need for prevention and for increased identification and treatment of infected patients.

Simon Burns: Where? When?

Melanie Johnson: I am just coming on to that subject. The plan will be forthcoming over the summer and into the autumn, and it will lead to more diagnoses of hepatitis C, which will allow more people to be considered for treatment.

NHS Estates

Roger Casale: What plans he has to review the criteria and procedures by which the NHS acquires and disposes of estates.

John Hutton: The latest guidance on the conduct of land acquisitions and disposals is contained in the Department's "Estatecode", a copy of which is in the Library. An updated version of that code was published last year. The guidance is kept under regular review.

Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise, however, that the wider public interest concerns—not least the quality of our urban environment—that are often involved in the disposal of NHS estates should be properly taken account of by the executives, who may be legally constrained, who undertake such disposals? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review the guidance notes?
	In the meantime, will the Minister consider examples of best practice such as the St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust in south-west London, which is disposing of the former Atkinson Morley's hospital site and is working with Merton council and local residents on projects such as a competition, to ensure that the best quality design is used? That not only gives us the money that we need to invest in the NHS, but is in people's best interests from the point of view of wider concerns such as the safeguarding of our green spaces.

John Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to his work in representing his constituents on the development of the Atkinson Morley's site. I understand that the trust is in the process of submitting a revised planning application for the use of that land in order better to reflect some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and his constituents. I am sure that he and they will welcome the fact that because it is metropolitan open land, there are restrictions on the extent to which it can be redeveloped. We always try to identify best practice across the NHS, and some of the work done by trusts in my hon. Friend's constituency certainly counts as that.

Hip Replacements

Martin Linton: What the estimated cost is of a hip replacement operation paid for by the NHS in (a) an NHS hospital and (b) the private health sector.

John Hutton: The latest figures indicate that the average cost of a primary hip replacement operation incurred by the NHS was £4,660 and that the cost outside the NHS was £6,848.

Martin Linton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the Atkinson Morley's site.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show why our health service is the most cost-effective in the world and why thousands are coming back to the NHS every week?

John Hutton: Certainly, the NHS is a very efficient health care system, as has been confirmed by international evidence and research. The costs of administering our national health service are lower than those of any other country or private sector provider.

Anne McIntosh: Of the hip replacements carried out in the NHS, how many are conducted by foreign-trained consultants, who are often foreign based and only temporarily based in the UK? Where the NHS is required to take action against such a consultant, how can it do so if they have returned to their home base?

John Hutton: I shall provide figures for the hon. Lady on the specific point that she raises.
	It is of course true that many of the surgeons who are employed in the NHS trained overseas. I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that they are providing anything less than effective care for patients. As regards surgeons provided by the new independent sector treatment centres, it remains the case that the NHS is responsible for the care and treatment that is provided in those settings, as are providers, and proper arrangements are in place to ensure that there is insurance cover.
	As for the standards of care that surgeons provide, they must all be registered with the General Medical Council on the specialist register, so they have exactly the same competencies and skills as our own UK-trained consultants.

Health Service (Nottingham)

Graham Allen: If he or one of his Ministers will attend the Nottingham health network conference on 12 November to listen to the health concerns of the local community.

Stephen Ladyman: The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), is considering an invitation to that event.

Graham Allen: I put on record my thanks for the way in which the Government have bolstered the local health service, especially by providing the highest ever number of nurses and doctors in our two hospitals in the city of Nottingham and by putting additional money into our primary care trust. However, in view of the appalling statistics that the Under-Secretary recently revealed about high levels of infant mortality and poor levels of sexual education, among many other things, will my hon. Friend urge her, or another ministerial colleague, to attend the Nottingham, North health conference to put on record what still needs to be done, despite the Government's excellent record?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will seriously consider the possibility of attending the conference. I emphasise that the ministerial team has attended 152 official engagements already this year. We are certainly consulting people in the field and we perceive no issue as more important than health inequalities and the need to ensure the provision of equal standards of care to everybody, everywhere.

Point of Order

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a sincere and abject personal apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for calling him a Jonah yesterday. Of course, I should have said a Jeremiah, as I am sure you realised immediately, Mr. Speaker, as did one or two of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should brush up on the Old Testament.

Lighter Evenings

Nigel Beard: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to advance time by one hour in England and Wales throughout the year; to provide that the power to make decisions in relation to time zones in Northern Ireland and Scotland be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes.
	During the winter, time would be Greenwich mean time plus one hour instead of simply Greenwich mean time, as it is now. In the summer, time would be Greenwich mean time plus two hours instead of Greenwich mean time plus one hour. That would increase accessible daylight by approximately an hour in the evenings throughout the year and postpone sunrise by about an hour. The postponement of sunrise in Scotland in winter from approximately 8.45 am to 9.45 am in, for example, Edinburgh, has been the chief objection to similar proposals in the past, even though Scotland would share the benefits that I shall outline shortly. For that reason, the Bill provides for the issue to be decided by the Scottish Parliament.
	Irish and United Kingdom clocks are currently synchronised. Unless the Government of the Republic of Ireland adopted the same arrangement, Ireland would be out of step with England and Wales by one hour. The Bill would leave the Northern Ireland Assembly free to choose whether to remain in line with southern Ireland or with England and Wales.
	At the moment, United Kingdom clocks are aligned with Portugal but all year round are one hour behind 16 of the 25 member states of the European Union, including France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. The proposal would align time in England and Wales with our major continental neighbours all year round. Those countries accounted for £137 billion of Britain's trade in 2003. That is 50 per cent. of Britain's exports of goods and services, affecting 3 million United Kingdom jobs. Under the proposal, the UK working day would coincide with the working day in that huge market, with obvious benefits for UK competitiveness and business efficiency.
	Airline, ferry and Eurostar schedules would be simpler. Out of 25 million inbound visitors last year, 14 million came from countries that would be in the same time zone under these proposals.
	Tourism is a key British industry, accounting for 4.5 per cent. of gross domestic product and supporting just over 2 million jobs. The British Resorts Association and Visit Britain support the Bill on account of the benefits it would bring to the tourist industry. It would extend the peak summer tourist season for foreigners and encourage more domestic day trips and weekend breaks. More of those short trips are taken in March and April and September and October than in summer. For organisations such as the National Trust and English Heritage, the extra hour of daylight in the evening is advantageous for those attractions that close at dusk. Taken as a whole, it is estimated that the extra hour of accessible daylight could add £3 billion a year to an industry worth £76 billion in 2004.
	Sport England supports the Bill because people's leisure time is after work, so lighter evenings could drive up participation in sport. It says:
	"This increased opportunity of extra daylight after work, combined with our policy priority to get employers to do more in terms of promoting activity among their workforce, could make a significant contribution towards driving up participation rates and delivering the associated health benefits that would stem from having an active and successful sporting nation."
	At the other end of the age range, Age Concern supports the Bill, saying:
	"We support British Summer Time extension throughout the winter to provide more daylight so that older people can stay out longer if they want to."
	Fear of crime keeps many elderly people indoors after dark, and the British crime survey shows that more than half the criminal offences committed take place during the hours of darkness in the late afternoon or evening. The implication is that more light in the evening could contribute to a reduction in offences.
	Early advocates of daylight saving promoted it on the grounds of energy saving. In 1784, Benjamin Franklin, then the American ambassador to France, calculated that Parisian families could save 96 million pre-revolutionary French pounds in candle wax and tallow from a measure such as this one. California has been the most recent focus of energy-saving activity, as a result of its energy crisis. The Energy Saving Trust, a Government and industry-sponsored organisation, has studied the case of California and believes that the Bill, which it supports, would lead to reductions in energy and carbon usage. Energy savings of between 0.5 and 1 per cent. are perhaps not huge, but they could be significant, given the amount of energy used in Britain. Moreover, by shifting peak demand, the need for one power station would probably be avoided.
	Today, one of the most powerful arguments for changing the clocks as proposed is the reduction of accidents in winter. For that reason, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, the Automobile Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents support the Bill, and there is plenty of evidence to underpin their position. Between 1968 and 1971, Britain experimented with Greenwich mean time plus one hour throughout the year, which gave the same winter times for sunrise and sunset as the Bill would give. During the first two winters of the experiment, 2,500 fewer people were killed or seriously injured. There was an increase in morning casualties, but the reduction in evening casualties far outweighed it.
	In 1998 the Transport Research Laboratory re-examined the results from 1968 to 1971 based on up-to-date conditions and assuming the time changes proposed in the Bill. It concluded that there would be 450 fewer deaths and serious injuries each year as a result of the extra hour of daylight each evening. Extra evening daylight protects vulnerable road users such as children, the elderly, cyclists and motorcyclists because it makes them more visible to motorists.
	In the mid 1990s, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents commissioned a Gallup poll to test public opinion on this subject. The provisions of the Bill were approved by 68 per cent., although in Scotland the figure was only 50 per cent. When the respondents were given the casualty reductions that I have just set out, approval in Scotland rose to 69 per cent., and to 77 per cent. in England and Wales. There was a three to one majority in favour of this change.
	This Bill could bring demonstrable benefits to trade and industry, energy saving and tourism. It could encourage greater participation in sport and help to reduce the toll of death and injury on our roads. Some evidence suggests that it could also lead to a greater feeling of well-being. That point was put much more eloquently by William Willetts, a pioneer of daylight saving from south-east London—an area renowned for wisdom and sensitivity. In 1907, he said:
	"Light is one of the great gifts of the creator. While daylight surrounds us, cheerfulness reigns, anxieties press less heavily and courage is bred for the struggle of life."
	I commend the Lighter Evenings Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Beard, Chris Bryant, Sir John Butterfill, Dr. Vincent Cable, Derek Conway, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. David Kidney, Norman Lamb, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Syd Rapson and David Taylor.

Lighter Evenings

Mr. Nigel Beard accordingly presented a Bill to advance time by one hour in England and Wales throughout the year; to provide that the power to make decisions in relation to time zones in Northern Ireland and Scotland be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 115].

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Global Navigation Satellite System

That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 12058/03, draft regulation on the establishment of structures for the management of the European Satellite Radionavigation Programme, and 6470/04, a Commission communication on progress on the Galileo research programme; endorses the Government's support for the draft Regulation to put in place effective supervision of the private sector concessionaire; and supports the Government's wider aims in seeking a lead role in the Galileo programme.—[Margaret Moran.]
	Question agreed to.

Age-Related Payments Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move,
	That, in accordance with the resolution of the Standing Committee of 25th May, the Programme Order of 12th May in relation to the Age-Related Payments Bill be varied as follows:
	Consideration and Third Reading
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order (consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration or, if earlier, at the moment of interruption.
	The Age-Related Payments Bill is a short and relatively simple measure. Following scrutiny during two sittings of Standing Committee D, we are now returning to the House for consideration and Third Reading. The Standing Committee agreed the terms of the programme motion without dissent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) was just saying, where the light shines, happiness reigns, and I hope that that might continue for the next three hours.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Age-Related Payments Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	"Qualifying Individual" And "Relevant Week"

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b)   is already 70 years old at the start of the financial year ending 31st March 2005, or attains that age at any time during the said financial year, or was living with such a person who dies during the said financial year.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'relevant week' and insert '31st March 2005'.
	No. 9, in page 1, line 13 [Clause 2], leave out 'either'.
	No. 10, in line 14, leave out from 'individual' to end of line 15.
	No. 11, in line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert 'and'.
	No. 4, in line 19, leave out from 'credit' to end of line 20.
	No. 12, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'individual' to end of line 7.
	No. 13, in line 10, leave out from 'individual' to end of line 11.
	No. 14, in line 40 [Clause 3], leave out subsection 4.
	No. 15, in line 44, leave out subsection 5.
	No. 16, in page 3, line 6, leave out subsection 6.
	No. 18, in line 12 [Clause 4], leave out paragraph (a).
	No. 19, in line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
	No. 17, in page 5 [Clause 8], leave out lines 15 and 16.

George Osborne: On the theme of light, I am sure that most of us would rather be outside in the sunlight than in here. We are doing our duty, however, as this is an important measure.
	My amendments—I tabled only two of the amendments in the group; the Liberal Democrats tabled the others—seek to revisit an argument that was explored in Committee. It is worth revisiting, however, as it is on the issue of eligibility.
	The Bill is all about giving elderly people a £100 payment to help them to pay their council tax bills, although it does not require people to pay council tax to receive the money. We have been round that course a couple of times, however, and the issue is eligibility. The Government included a requirement that only those who are 70—or over, obviously—during the week of 20 to 26 September this year will qualify. I suppose that they did so for reasons of administrative simplicity, and because that is the qualifying period for winter fuel payments.
	Our amendments Nos. 3 and 2—principally amendment No. 3—would help all those who reach the age of 70 during this financial year, not just those who were 70 or over during the week of 20 to 26 September. Amendment No.3 would also help those who were living with someone aged 70 or over where the person had died before the qualifying week arrived. It helps two groups of people who are not being helped because of the rough justice of the Government's proposed system of administration. It will help those who turn 70 after 26 September, who under the Bill will not get any money, but who are paying council tax bills for this financial year, and indeed have probably already done so. It will also help those who are paying in instalments. Furthermore, it will help widows, widowers and partners of people who were 70 and who paid their council tax bills, but who died before the magic qualifying week.
	Of course, those people would have been alive to hear the Chancellor promising them that money. I do not suggest that £100 would make up for the loss of a relative, husband, wife or partner, but the situation seems a little unfair.
	When the Chancellor made his Budget speech, he produced the proposal with a great flourish—it was the big bit that he was saving for the end of his speech that was announced at the last minute and designed to get a cheer from Labour Members. After listening to him, one would not have imagined that some people who would be aged over 70 during the financial year and had to pay council tax bills would not be eligible—he certainly did not spell that out.
	When the Chancellor made the announcement, he had little idea that primary legislation would be required to bring about the £100 payment. The Bill has presumably been pushed upon the Chancellor and the Government because he did not consult the Department for Work and Pensions before he made the announcement. The Department had to go to him after the event to say, "Hold on Chancellor, you're going to need a full piece of primary legislation here", and that is why the details were not spelled out in the Budget speech.
	The Conservative amendments address the basic point of what the Bill is about. It is designed to help elderly people to pay their council tax bills. The bills landed on their doorsteps in early April or late March, and they have already paid them or are paying them in instalments. Although the measure is linked to winter fuel payments, there is a big difference between the schemes. People receive winter fuel payments on the basis of the qualifying week between 20 and 26 September because the scheme is linked to the winter, so September is a good time to ascertain which people will be 70 during the forthcoming winter. However, the Bill is linked to council tax bills, which are issued in April. I do not understand why, for simple reasons of administrative efficiency, the Government are excluding people who will be 70 in the forthcoming year and paying high council tax bills. Such people are on fixed incomes and are exactly the kind of elderly pensioners whom the Chancellor mentioned. However, by a fiat of Whitehall, they will not receive the money which they are due. That is unfair and it is not what they would have expected after listening to the Chancellor. The amendments would achieve the simple objective of allowing the Government to live up to their word.

Steve Webb: When I saw the eight-minute speech limit sign flash up on the Annunciator, I thought that there had been a sudden rush of interest in the Age-Related Payments Bill and that hon. Members were queueing up to have their say. I then realised that the limit related to far more important matters, such as where airports should go. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, the Bill is important. It will lead to the spending of nearly £500 million of public money, so slightly more than desultory attention should be paid to it—it will probably get that this afternoon.
	There are two kinds of amendments in the group. As the hon. Gentleman said, the first kind revisits arguments that we had in Committee. Liberal Democrats advocated similar arguments about which 70-year-olds should be eligible: should they be those who reach 70 by the week in September or should there be a more generous interpretation under the scheme? The Minister is a generous man, so I am sure that he will want to accept the amendments with a generosity of spirit.
	If the Bill is supposed to help people who are 70 and have to pay council tax, why would we want to exclude from its provisions people who reached 70 during the year and started to pay council tax in April? One amendment would provide that if people reached the age of 70 by the end of the financial year, a payment could be made to them. Such people might spend half the year at the age of 70, but despite paying council tax for that time, they will not receive a penny from the Government or qualify for anything.
	As the hon. Member for Tatton rightly pointed out, one can see the convenience of linking the payment with the winter fuel payments, but there is no winter aspect to it. Since it runs from last April to next March, we think that people who reach 70 at any point during the year ought to qualify.
	If the typical council tax is about £900 for a band D property, and knocking off a quarter for the single person's discount makes it about £675, the £100 payment is only a tiny fraction of the council tax bill. If a 70-year-old were 70 for only half the year, he or she would still pay more than £300 in council tax while 70 but would not qualify for £100 from the Government towards that bill; they would qualify for nothing because they became 70 at the wrong point in the year. It is a bit daft to use a cut-off point that has something to do with winter, which is related to an entirely different system for help with fuel costs. It means transposing that system into something to do with council tax, which is not seasonal but requires payments pretty much throughout the year. I sympathise with the amendment that would allow the payment to be made by the end of the financial year, and I recall from Committee that, in the context of the £500 million cost of the Bill, the cost of including those who become 70 in the second half of the year would be relatively marginal and would not upset the overall balance of the scheme.
	Since Committee, we have tabled amendments that arose, in the true spirit of parliamentary scrutiny, from the Minister's responses. When we looked at the Bill in detail, we discovered some unpalatable aspects to it. One is the fact that the £100 is not universal, as we had thought, but means-tested. The public do not appreciate that whether someone gets £100 depends on whether they are receiving a means-tested benefit. That is not widely understood.
	The Minister has been very helpful. I raised some hypothetical cases with him in Committee, and within the last hour my fax machine has whizzed away as he has made sure that, in plenty of time for this debate, I had the details of how the system works. It is worth putting a couple of examples on the record that illustrate quite how beautifully the new scheme will work. The Government think in terms of pensioner households, but there ain't no such thing: there are individual pensioners living in different combinations, each of whom, known in the jargon as a benefit unit, has an entitlement to the age-related payment.
	The Minister has given me two examples. One involves three sisters—the Beverly sisters, perhaps, all now over 70, I imagine—who are living together and none of whom is in receipt of pension credit. Each of them would get £50. On the other hand, two brothers—the Righteous brothers, maybe; I do not know how many of them there were—over 70 and living together while in receipt of pension credit would get £100 each. That pensioner household would get £200, but the payment is supposed to be £100. Why do they get £200? It is because they are poor. So poor people get more, but the payment is not means-tested: I do not quite follow that logic.
	Another of our amendments would remove another perversity. If one lives in a nursing home, the Government do the opposite to the foregoing. Poor people in nursing homes get nothing, but those in nursing homes who are not on pension credit get £50. Where is the logic in that? When we pressed the Minister, he said that poor people in nursing homes have their council tax paid for them. Lots of people have their council tax paid but can get the £100 if they do not live in a nursing home.
	The more we looked at the Bill, the more riddled with inconsistencies we found it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am told that the Bill mirrors precisely the arrangements for the winter fuel payment, which means that that is far more means-tested than I had realised. We have tabled a lot of amendments because the Bill is riddled with means-testing. The words "pension credit" appear all over the place, and the question must be why, if the payment is a flat-rate, universal one, the Bill refers to pension credit at all.
	In fact, this is a means-tested payment that the Chancellor dressed up as a universal one. Had he said at the end of the Budget that he would introduce a £100 payment, but it would be means-tested and how much anyone would get would depend on whether they were on pension credit, who they lived with and whether they were on pension credit, and whether they were in a nursing home, his reception would not have been quite as rapturous as it was.
	The amendments are intended to remove every reference in the Bill to pension credit. The effect would be, we hope—amendments do not always do quite what we intend them to do—to say that the amount people get should be fixed and should not be means-tested. That would not enhance the payments of people on pension credit, but those in nursing homes would not be penalised for being on pension credit, which seems right. There is a long string of amendments, but there is one point to them: why are we making a universal payment, then introducing all sorts of aspects of means-testing to determine how much is paid?

Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that while there are special arrangements for pension credit households, he understands that there is no separate means test for the £100? I should hate those listening to think that some income-testing system is being introduced to determine the £100 payment. It is not so.

Steve Webb: The Minister has given me fresh wind. It may be that there is a household of two people not on pension credit who get £50 each. If one of them then applies for the pension credit, that one gets £100. The means test applied to determine whether he was eligible for pension credit carries across to the £100 payment. I do not want to give a misleading impression, and I am not suggesting that there is separate means-testing when someone claims the age-related payment, although, in general, people will not have to claim it because it should be automatic. I am saying, however, that the amount anyone gets depends on whether they are claiming a means-tested benefit, which is certainly not the impression that the Chancellor gave at the end of his Budget speech.
	In the spirit of what the Chancellor said, we would have expected there to be no mention of pension credit in the Bill, and we would especially not have expected any bizarre business about three sisters not on credit getting £50, or £150 for that household, when the payment is supposed to be £100. How can a household get £150? Simply, it is because the payment is not a payment per household. It is just a mess, and it is disappointing that a Department implementing such a simple policy has made such a mess of it. We are trying to help the Department by simplifying the Bill and stripping out all the complexity to do with means-testing by introducing a straight entitlement, which I am sure will find favour with the Government.

Alan Hurst: It seems to me that Jeremiah is not only the prophet of Scottish Members, but is widely favoured among the Opposition. I fully understand the points made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), but I see certain flaws in his argument. I could understand his logic more if he had suggested that those who were 69 at the beginning of the financial year were eligible. Then, there would be a clear date after which people would qualify.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendment would allow payment to be made before the recipient became 70. It may be that, for various reasons, those people would fail to qualify afterwards: death is the most obvious, but people might move out of the jurisdiction or a range of events might subsequently disqualify a recipient. If the amendment referred to someone being 69 at the beginning of the financial year, there would be a greater logical force to his argument.
	I had hoped for more joy from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about what the Government have brought in, which is widely regarded as a most helpful measure. One can always find financial improvements in any measure, and it is always better to simplify measures to make them less complicated than they might otherwise be, but the Bill has the great advantage that claimants do not have to go to great lengths to claim and that the payment is made automatically on the basis of information that the Department already has. In that way, it compares well with certain other benefits that have been paid in the past.

Malcolm Wicks: As has been set out already by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), this is a relatively simple measure. Its intention is to pay all eligible households containing someone aged 70 or over an extra £100 this year in recognition of the burden of council tax increases on many of those households. It was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget speech.
	We reasoned that the best way to deliver that payment would be through the winter fuel payment process, a tried and tested system that is popular and works well. Many of the arguments made today, some of which are perfectly legitimate, relate to that methodology. All such matters are kept under review—I mean that seriously—and some of that methodology perhaps needs further scrutiny, but many of the issues raised relate to that.
	The hon. Member for Tatton mentioned fiats of Whitehall, which sounds rather like a local car dealer. He made quite heavy weather out of what is really a simple measure. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has a great art of making the relatively simple sound vastly complex. That is quite an endearing trait, but to build a whole political career on it could become tiresome. I was reflecting that I am glad that it was not the hon. Gentleman on the radio this morning explaining exactly how and why Venus is passing in front of the sun; otherwise, I should have been even more confused by that than I am.
	This group of amendments would revise clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 to change who is a qualifying individual, the link between the eligibility criteria and the relevant week, entitlement conditions for both basic and special cases, disqualifications and, as a consequence of the changes to clause 2, definitions of terms used in the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 3 and 2 would amend clause 1 by extending the payment to include people who will reach the age of 70 on or before 31 March 2005, at an additional cost of about £20 million. We believe that deferring the data-matching process to allow people to attain age 70 by 31 March would delay the making of automatic payments. Under current arrangements, those will be made in November, at a point at which the money is needed because pensioners are still paying this year's council tax bills. As the data match takes five to six weeks, those amendments would mean that automatic payments could not be made until May 2005—too late to help with this year's bills.

Steve Webb: One reason why we tabled that amendment in a slightly different way in Committee— using the definition of people's dates of birth—was that that information is known at the start of the financial year. The Department would not have to wait until those people reached 70 before doing the data matching, but could do that at the start of the financial year because it would know who would reach 70 during that year. Obviously, arrangements would be needed for people who died, but we might be concerned about widows and their council tax, too.

Malcolm Wicks: Sadly, that is the difficulty—we cannot quite predict who will still be there later in the year. I should point out that by extending the qualifying date to September, using the winter fuel payment methodology, we have brought an additional 210,000 pensioner households into the payment since it was announced on 17 March. I hope that we will not be accused of a lack of generosity because the September deadline has now allowed that extra group to be included.
	Amendment No. 3 would extend qualifying individual status to anyone who lived with someone who was aged 70 or over but had died during the current financial year. That would allow anyone who shared accommodation with such a person to become a qualifying individual, eligible for the payment. If the person aged 70 or over died before the relevant week, they would not have gained entitlement to the payment, but the person who lived with them would do so purely as a result of their death. This is probably a drafting problem, but that would theoretically mean that a 12-year-old grandchild, a 30-year-old rent-paying lodger or a 40-year-old live-in carer could become a qualified individual and receive the payment simply by virtue of living with a person who was aged 70 or over before they died. That might not be the amendment's intention, but it is what it means in technical and legal terms.
	Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 would remove the automatic £100 household payment from all qualifying single pension credit recipients and align their entitlement with that of non-pension credit recipients. That would mean depriving some older and poorer pensioners of half their entitlement. Almost 70 per cent. of pension credit recipients are aged 70 or over, and of those 83 per cent. are single pensioners. We have had a brief discussion about whether the special arrangements for pension credit households represent a means-testing element in the Bill, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for Northavon agreed that we are not attempting to introduce a separate income-testing arrangement especially for this measure.
	Amendment No. 4 would change conditions in clause 2 that govern how much qualifying individuals will receive. It would have the perverse effect of allowing two payments, totalling £150, to be made to single individuals who do not live with another qualifying individual and who are not in receipt of pension credit. As clause 2 stands, a qualifying individual can fall into either the £100 payment category or a £50 payment category, but not both. If a single eligible person receives pension credit, they will automatically receive £100 irrespective of with whom they live. If they do not live with another qualifying individual, they will receive £100 irrespective of whether they receive pension credit. That leaves only the situation in which a single eligible person is not on pension credit and is living with another eligible person. That person will receive £50.
	Amendment No 4, however, would remove the condition of living with another qualifying individual from the £50 payment category, which would leave the default position that a single eligible person not living with another qualifying individual and not receiving pension credit would become eligible for the £50 payment. As those people are already in the £100 payment category, they would be eligible to receive both payments, giving a total of £150. The amendment would mean that that group of people would receive a higher payment than couples, having become eligible, in effect, for more than the full payment. Again, I suspect that that was not the intention of the amendment, but it would be its effect and impact.
	Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would change the payment condition for members of the more than 225,000 couples who receive pension credit. Where both members of a couple qualified for a payment, they would each receive £50, rather than the current provision for a single £100 household payment to be made to the pension credit recipient. That would mean establishing the eligibility of every pension credit recipient's partner, and those who qualified would receive a separate £50 payment while their partner's household entitlement was adjusted from £100 to £50. There would then be two payments, two letters and double postage costs to deliver the same £100 to the same couple in the same household. Again, we are following the logic of the winter fuel payment system in the Bill, which is simpler and more sensible.
	Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 would remove from clause 3 the specific entitlement and payment conditions for people aged 70 or over who have been living in care homes for 13 weeks or more. That would mean making a payment to all care home residents, even where their care and accommodation needs were being met through public funds, at an additional cost of some £7 million. As drafted, the Bill provides for care home residents not receiving pension credit to be eligible for a £50 payment because they are sharing their accommodation with others and it is safe to assume that they are contributing at least in part to their care home costs. Care home residents receiving pension credit are not entitled to a payment because it is equally safe to assume that people in receipt of pension credit have their care and accommodation needs met through public funds.
	The effect of amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would be to remove disqualification from those who have been receiving free in-patient hospital treatment or care continuously for 52 weeks or more, even though their day-to-day living expenses, including heating and food, are provided by public funds through the health service. That would extend eligibility to some 6,000 people aged 70 or over who have been in hospital for more than a year, at a cost of about £600,000.
	I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I hope that Members will accept my explanation that it would not constitute a good use of public resources, and that they recognise that this Government have made great improvements in what is known as the hospital downrating of benefit by enabling people to keep that benefit for a year.

Steve Webb: The logic of the Minister's argument concerning people who live in care homes is that those who pay towards care home costs get the £50, and those who are on pension credit and who do not pay towards the costs get nothing. As he will confirm, these payments are intended to help with council tax. If he is arguing that such people should not receive these payments because they do not pay council tax, what about the 1 million or more pensioners on pension credit who also do not pay council tax? Why are there different rules for the two groups of people?

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the question and it is a perfectly reasonable one. We discussed this issue in Committee, and while the intention behind the £100 payment for this year arises from concern about the burden of council tax, we nevertheless sought to make the payment in a broad-brush way through the winter fuel payment system. Yes, there will be rough edges, and there may even be an element of rough justice here and there, but this is the simplest way to get the money to those who need it.
	At the risk of accusing the hon. Member for Northavon of occasionally being inconsistent, I should point out that adopting a more sophisticated system that ties public moneys to the particular burdens facing particular individuals in particular parts of the country, and which allows for whether or not they are in care homes, would take us down a far more complex road. It would probably involve some form of income testing, and I doubt whether he is in favour of such testing in this era.
	I do not intend to elaborate further on the issue of hospital downrating, given that we discussed it at considerable length in Committee and divided on it. Clause 8 contains definitions of terms used in the Bill and amendment No. 17 would remove the definition of state pension credit. As I have said repeatedly, we are aligning the rules and procedures for entitlement to payment with those for winter fuel payments—with which such payments will be made—to keep the process simple. Moving away from this tried and tested process would incur additional administrative costs in excess of £20 million and would lead to a delay in the making of payments, at least for some. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing the amendment.

George Osborne: This has been quite an interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on some of his contributions. I was saddened to see that he did not include on the selection list an amendment that would give everyone who pays council tax a £100 payment. Of course, such a payment was Liberal Democrat policy during the Brent, East by-election, but it was strangely dropped soon afterwards. We are now waiting for the Liberal Democrats' Leicester, South policy.
	The Minister rather made my case for me at the end of his speech when he talked about elements of rough justice. He is right, and I made the same point on introducing the amendments: because of the Government's chosen administrative mechanism, some of the people who really should be getting the £100 will lose out. If the £100 payment is linked to people who pay council tax and is designed to help the elderly and those on fixed incomes, those who reach 70 after 26 September but who have paid council tax bills for this year really should receive the money. I am not a Department for Work and Pensions official who has pored over this issue—[Interruption.] The Minister pays me the tribute of saying that I would make a very good DWP official, but unfortunately I did not sit my civil service exams all those years ago.
	I do not know whether there is a simple way of identifying such people, and the Minister did not explain whether the Government considered paying those who will reach 70 after 26 September. Nor am I sure what devices were at the DWP's disposal, but as the legislation is currently constructed some people will be caught on its rough edges. I suppose that the Government's chosen delivery mechanism does expose the fiction that this payment is linked to council tax, given that some people who do not pay council tax will in fact receive it. The provision has served that purpose if nothing else, but that said, I do not wish to detain the House further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Power To Provide For Payments

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 14, leave out clause 7.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	No. 20, in title, line 2, leave out from '70' to end of line 3.

George Osborne: These amendments deal with the extraordinary clause 7, which is extraordinary because it gives the Government wide-ranging powers to provide future one-off payments not just to those aged over 70, in the manner we have just discussed, but to those aged over 60. Absolutely no explanation has been given as to why the Government wanted to take that power upon themselves. Of course, if things had not been messed up at the beginning—had the Chancellor not said that primary legislation is required to introduce the measure announced in the Budget—he would not have needed to introduce such primary legislation to give himself this broad-ranging power. I suppose that the DWP said to the Chancellor, "We're going to have to introduce this primary legislation to implement your Budget announcement. I am sorry that we weren't consulted on this and that we have to bring you this bad news, but while we are taking the Bill through the House, why don't we give ourselves a general power to make special one-off payments to those aged over 60?"
	What, one wonders, is so special about the age of 60? Will not the general state retirement age be 65 once the retirement age for women is increased? No explanation has been given as to why the age of 60 has been chosen. What payments do the Government envisage making? Perhaps they are a continuation of the payments in respect of council tax. If so, the Government presumably expect council tax bills to continue to increase at the same very high rate at which they have increased since they took office. Perhaps they want to ensure that next year, they can give a dollop of money to elderly people to pay for their council tax. Perhaps they will introduce the same mechanism of a qualifying week. Perhaps they will restrict the provision to those over 70, or to those over 60. Perhaps a distinction will be drawn between men and women. Perhaps women over 60 and men over 65 will qualify. However, we know none of these details because no explanation has been given as to why this general power is being included in the Bill.
	Presumably, the main reason for the power is to prevent the Chancellor's being embarrassed again, so that he can make such Budget announcements without needing to implement them through primary legislation. The Minister is a clever man, and I well understand why he wants to keep in with the Chancellor at the moment. That is sensible politics, but it is not really a good enough reason to introduce such a wide-ranging power. The Minister can presumably confirm that there is no requirement that such payments be linked to council tax, even in debating terms. Such payments could be for anything: summertime payments, springtime payments, or payments for those aged 77 precisely. This is a very wide-ranging power.
	I have decided to try to help the Minister by giving him a menu of options. [Interruption.] As he again says from a sedentary position, I am behaving like a DWP official.
	Here is the range of options. I suspect that the Minister will not accept one of them as he would one of the options suggested by DWP officials, but there we are.
	Amendment No. 7 would allow the clause to remain in the Bill, but would change the word "may" to "shall" in subsection (1). In other words, if the Government want to take this power upon themselves, they need to tell us what exactly they envisage. If the Government have some scheme that they are dreaming up, let us hear about it now, so that we can decide whether it is good or bad. If it is good, we can allow it to remain in the Bill. Changing the word "may" to "shall" forces the Government's hand. They cannot then put something in the locker and bring it out on some future convenient occasion. They would have to do it now and reveal their hand.
	If the Government do not want that and are not dreaming anything up at the moment, I am afraid that amendment No. 8 would be applicable. It would simply remove the clause from the Bill. I should also point out that amendment No. 20 would amend the Bill's long title. That long title is itself something of a giveaway. It says that the Bill is to
	"make provision for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 70; and to enable provision to be made for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 60."
	The extra bit is the new power that the Government are taking upon themselves. As I said, if the Government cannot accept amendment No. 7, they should accept amendment No. 8 and remove the wide-ranging power from the Bill.
	It is easy for Governments and bureaucracies to use every opportunity to accumulate power, even if they do not know when they are going to use it. However, it is not right for Parliament, which exists to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and to protect the liberties of the subject, to hand over these general powers to the Minister, at least without his having some specific scheme in mind.

Steve Webb: You will see, Mr. Speaker, that I added my name to amendment No. 8 and I believe that we divided in Committee on a similar amendment. We agree absolutely that clause 7 should have no part in the Bill.
	I was reflecting on the matter this morning when it occurred to me that the Department for Work and Pensions gets rather blasé about zeros. Most Departments would regard £1 million or £2 million here or there as pretty serious money. They think of it in terms of a school extension, a new ward in a hospital and so on. The odd million here or there certainly adds up to some serious money, but the Department for Work and Pensions does not have that approach. This Bill spends nearly £0.5 billion and by accident we have some primary legislation to put it into effect.
	Clause 7 gives the Government the power to spend another £0.5 billion, with no scrutiny or power to amend it whatever. I believe that clause 7 amounts to a constitutional outrage. It will give the Government the power to introduce an unlimited scheme. If they want to, the Government can pay everyone over the age of 60 any amount of money for any reason. Paying £100 to the over-70s costs £0.5 billion, so what would paying winter fuel payments to the over-60s cost? We could be talking about billions of pounds. In the context of the DWP, I suppose that that amounts to a rounding error, but in the context of wider Government priorities, the idea of giving just one Department the power to spend such vast amounts of money on the strength of a 90-minute debate in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation seems truly extraordinary.
	We—Parliament—would not have the power to amend the proposals. If the Government's scheme were acceptable in principle but contained detailed flaws, we would not even have the right to change it. We would have to accept or reject the whole measure on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, yet potentially the £0.5 billion is at stake. That amount is neither fanciful nor hypothetical; it is what we are spending today. A further £0.5 billion could be spent without our having the chance to change it. That is totally unacceptable. The Bill has hardly been subject to rigorous scrutiny, but we have spent plenty of hours on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report today, looking at the details and debating them. The idea that the principle has been established that it is okay to pay out lump sums whenever the Government feel like it, so that we do not have to go through all this inconvenient scrutiny ever again, seems to me absolutely incredible.
	The principal reason why clause 7 should not be in the Bill is that it gives the Government the power to bring in unlimited spending. There is not even a cap in the Bill. It does not say that spending can be made by regulation up to a fairly modest amount, with serious legislation being required for larger amounts. It simply allows the Government to do anything they fancy to anyone over 60 on any basis whatever, with negligible scrutiny. That is the fundamental objection.
	We should not give the Government these sweeping powers without some indication of what might motivate them to make these payments. We have had winter fuel payments, but they were never really much to do with winter fuel. The only aspect of winter fuel about the payment was the fact that it was made in the winter—I should say winterish, as I think that the first-year payment was made in the spring. It had nothing to do with winter fuel. People could spend it on whatever they liked—holidays abroad and the rest of it.
	Similarly, the council tax payment has nothing really to do with the council tax. It is an arbitrary excuse for the Government to hand over some cash to a particular section of the electorate. Who are we talking about? I exaggerate only slightly when I say that it is the only people who actually vote. We may find that out on Thursday. In other words, the Government sat down, thought that they were in a pickle over the council tax and wondered what they could do about it. They did not have an answer, so they needed a holding position. It is a pretty expensive holding position—£0.5 billion of taxpayers' money—just to get the Government out of a fix. Is that really the basis on which we should be legislating in this place? It is bad enough doing so after a Budget speech through primary legislation, but doing so as clause 7 allows—on the whim of a statutory instrument—is just unbelievable.
	It is the Government's track record that causes concern about the powers in the Bill. I recall that the birth of the winter fuel payment was connected with the fact that the Government received an unexpected refund of the EU contribution. The Chancellor of the day—in 1997, if I recall correctly—suddenly found that he had some extra cash that he was not expecting to have. The House may have forgotten that the winter fuel payment was introduced for people who were not on income support—of course, it was means-tested at that point—at the level of £20. Now we are up in the realms of £400, so these things do have a knack of growing spectacularly.
	The Government seem to introduce such payments on an almost ad hoc basis. It is worth reminding ourselves that the winter fuel payment was also introduced through a statutory instrument because it was a social fund payment. It used the word "fuel" even though it had nothing to do with fuel, so it could be introduced under social fund legislation, which provides for payments for fuel costs. That is why no primary legislation was required. I recall wondering for many minutes why I had never sat on a Committee considering a winter fuel payments Bill. The answer is that the Government did not require primary legislation; they already had the power to hand over what amounted to billions of pounds in respect of winter fuel payments.
	The Government have a track record and they have form. They find a pot of money, wonder what to spend it on, and invent a scheme. They have done the same thing with the council tax in the Age-Related Payments Bill. The Government get into a mess, wonder what to do and come up with a scheme.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument—and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)—very carefully. Is he telling me that when these measures were debated, his party opposed them on the grounds that Her Majesty's Government were simply handing out money to people who, as he said, could spend it on holidays? I did not notice that argument being made by either party at the time.

Steve Webb: The reason why the hon. Lady did not notice it was that there was no debate. If she had been listening to what I said a few moments ago, she would know that there was no debate over the winter fuel payment. There was no winter fuel payment Bill because the Government introduced the measure, if I recall correctly, on the basis of negative resolution procedure in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. We never actually debated these matters. That is precisely the point that I am making. Clause 7 gives the Government the power, any time that they come up with a wheeze, to make payments on any basis that they like. They can call them winter fuel payments, although there is no link to winter fuel, or call them council tax payments, although there is no link to the council tax. The clause gives the Government a blanket power to make payments whenever they feel like it.
	I know that the hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner for parliamentary scrutiny. She ought to feel as uncomfortable as I do about giving the Government the power to bring in a scheme costing £500 million or more with just 90 minutes of scrutiny, especially when the provision is totally unamendable.
	The key point is that this power is huge and sweeping. Parliament will not be able to have any serious scrutiny of what the Government might come up with. The Government have a track record of introducing such ideas whenever they are in a pickle or have a windfall. It is totally unacceptable that that should be the basis of support for old people.
	What do older people have to look forward to under this Government? The answer is wheezes, schemes and gizmos—when there is a bit of money to hand. They should be able to look forward to getting decent, secure incomes every year. Those incomes should not be available only when the Government have a bit of money or are in a mess over the local tax system. The Government should give up on clause 7.
	The Minister should accept amendment No. 8. We need a proper support system for older people, planned ahead of time so that they know what is coming. In contrast, this Bill will literally be here today and gone tomorrow, as it offers one payment to be made because a problem exists and there is a bit of money to solve it with.
	We often discuss what the Minister thinks about as he lies on his bed at night—[Interruption.]

Malcolm Wicks: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not him.

Steve Webb: I hope that the Minister will spare me a thought, and that he will ponder whether the best way to support pensioners is for the Government to have the power to produce new schemes and handouts whenever they are in a pickle or come up with a bright idea. Would it not be better for older people to have a decent, secure and long-term income, instead of yet another scheme?

Alan Hurst: Again, I shall keep my remarks brief. I am astounded at some of what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has said. He described the amendment as though it were of such seismic constitutional importance that we could expect the Opposition Benches to be filled with the serried ranks of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members.

Steve Webb: They will be here.

Alan Hurst: The Bill is a very positive development. It will not take anything away from people: it will not narrow down our citizens' liberties, or penalise them financially. However, it will allow the Government to move quickly to help those people in our community who are often in the greatest need. The provision will mean that people will not have to wait a long time for help that may not, in the end, be made available.
	It may be right to say that there is a lot that we could do on a more permanent basis to revise the pensions structure. I have never been ashamed to admit that I believe in restoring the earnings link, and I am sure that that will happen.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Hear, hear.

Alan Hurst: However, when an urgent need arises the Government must also be able to do something about it fairly quickly. I therefore have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Bill. It is full of positive help for a large section of our community, and it has been disappointing to hear the rather mean-spirited criticism of this beneficial measure.

Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what the urgent need was this summer?

Alan Hurst: I have knocked around in politics for the best part of 40-odd years. Usually, opponents of the Government say that the system governing payment of rates—or council tax, or poll tax—is dreadful. The hon. Gentleman and his party have always complained that council tax is especially unfair to people on fixed incomes. The Government have produced a scheme that will assist those people very quickly, and they have not chosen to push off into the wide blue—or yellow—yonder with debates about alternative schemes.
	I therefore thoroughly welcome the Bill. I certainly do not propose to support the amendment.

Malcolm Wicks: This simple and rather innocent little Bill has provoked suggestions of all sorts of conspiracies, and other things. At one stage today, I thought that there would be an outbreak of party politics. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke about the Government being blasé with zeros, and I thought that he would attack the jests made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) about the Brent by-election and what I assume was a Liberal Democrat promise of £100. However, I do not want to go into the matter of the Brent bouncing cheque as the people of this great country are sitting at home and quietly contemplating how to cast their votes on Thursday. We should not raise discussion of this subject to fever pitch in that way.
	The hon. Member for Northavon inquired—somewhat cheekily, I thought—about what I think of at night. I shall not discuss that, as I just try to get to sleep. However, sitting in my garden, I do occasionally think about the great contributions made by Liberals in the past. I have to keep reminding the hon. Gentleman that Lloyd George was the one who introduced the old-age pension, and the work of the great William Beveridge must also be borne in mind. The Liberal contribution to social reform since the 1940s has been rather disappointing, but the party's track record can always be improved.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 7 seek, respectively, to remove clause 7 altogether on the one hand, and on the other hand to mandate the Secretary of State to invoke the powers provided in the clause. The amendments would remove from the long title of the Bill the reference to the enabling provision for payments to be made by the Secretary of State to people aged over 60. We discussed clause 7 at length in Committee, but it may be helpful to the House if I reiterate its purpose.
	Clause 7 provides a regulation-making power so that, if circumstances warrant it, future payments may be made to people aged 60 or over that may be related to age or other circumstances. The power will enable the Department to legislate swiftly, should a need arise.
	We have always made it clear that this payment of £100 is for this year only, and to meet a specific need—the impact of recent council tax increases on the fixed incomes of older pensioners. During the Bill's passage, we have debated at great length the principle of making one-off payments to pensioners to meet specific needs in that way. It would be expensive and time consuming to have to introduce primary legislation, and therefore have the debate again, every time such a payment were warranted.
	Any regulations made using this power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, as such, will be debated by both Houses. They will also come within the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
	I hope that the House will accept that the purpose of the clause is to avoid the situation that we are in, and that we will use the power only if it is prudent to do so.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister confirm that he just said that it would be time consuming to scrutinise properly a future Government decision to spend £500 million or more?

Malcolm Wicks: I am saying that we need a mechanism that will allow us to introduce payments as speedily as is consistent with proper scrutiny. Indeed, some Opposition Members attacked the Government on Second Reading for using primary legislation for this purpose, and wondered why this approach was necessary.
	Amendment No. 7 would oblige the Secretary of State to make future payments to those aged 60 or over. In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) stated that the purpose of the same amendment was to probe the matter. Given our discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and again today, it has been very thoroughly probed.
	On Second Reading and in Committee, the hon. Gentleman asked to see draft regulations, but I repeat what I told him on those occasions—that there are no draft regulations, and no current plans to invoke this power. At this point, we cannot predict the future use of the regulation-making power, but we can say with certainty that, by providing for future payments to be made through secondary legislation, we are keeping costs and the use of parliamentary time to a minimum. I should have expected that to be welcomed by hon. Members, given the criticism from some quarters on Second Reading.

Robert Smith: Does the Minister accept that parliamentary time spent scrutinising legislation is well spent if it helps us to avoid the pitfalls that might be encountered when a provision goes through unamended and unscrutinised?

Malcolm Wicks: Of course, and that is why this Bill is being scrutinised properly—although there is not as much demand for proper scrutiny as one might expect. If they are invoked, the powers contained in the regulations will be scrutinised in Committee in the usual way for secondary legislation, and the Social Security Advisory Committee will also scrutinise them. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for dropping in on our debates on this important matter.

Robert Smith: If the Minister had been a little more observant, he would have noticed that I was present for quite a lot of the debate on this group of amendments and the previous group. When I have left the Chamber, it has been to have discussions through the usual channels to facilitate the progress of this debate.

Malcolm Wicks: I certainly noticed that the hon. Gentleman was here for parts of the debate, but he was not here for all of it, so I do not think that I need to apologise. He has already made a far more substantial contribution than one member of our Committee, whose major contribution was to ask for the blinds in the Committee Room to be raised and who then had to leave on other urgent business. That is one way to shed light on the debate.
	I ask the hon. Member for Tatton to withdraw the amendment.

George Osborne: We have had an enjoyable debate. I welcomed the support from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for Conservative policy on the linking of the state pension to earnings. Support was also expressed from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It would be great if we could lock the doors now and have a vote on the issue, because we would win.
	The Minister gave no explanation for the Government's actions beyond the fact that they want to have a mechanism for the future. He said that he did not want to waste Parliament's time by introducing primary legislation again. However, the clause would give the Government very wide powers to introduce almost any kind of benefit targeted at people over the age of 60. Clause 7 (2) states:
	"Regulations . . . may provide for payments to be made . . . to persons in a specified class (which may be defined by reference to age or otherwise) . . . in specified circumstances."
	One can almost envisage the Government introducing a major new benefit under that power. It is not even limited to repeating the payment that will be made under the Bill. If the Government had made clause 7 say that they might make the same payment to the same group of people in subsequent years, they would have had a better argument. By putting the age of 60 into the clause, they have revealed that they have other future payments in mind.
	The comments by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on parliamentary scrutiny were spot on. We cannot allow such wide powers to stay on the face of the Bill and therefore we seek to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 253.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This is a simple Bill, as we have discussed, although it has created some controversy. It will make real the promise given in the Budget to pay all eligible households with someone aged over 70 an extra £100 this year, in recognition of the impact of recent council tax increases on the fixed incomes of older people. The payment will be made through the winter fuel payment process. The Bill also provides the power to make regulations under the affirmative procedure to enable other targeted payments to people aged over 60 to be made in the future if circumstances warrant such payments.
	The Bill has attracted broad support from all parts of the House and a number of hon. Members have made valuable contributions to its scrutiny. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) tabled a series of probing amendments that allowed us to explore, at some length, the detail of how the payment will be made. That has left us all much wiser, particularly in relation to polygamous marriages, among other things—a subject that provoked some interest in Committee. I also thank the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for his scrutiny.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has argued eloquently throughout our deliberations that the payment should be both universal and uniform. We, in turn, have explained why it will not and, further, why it cannot be.My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and for Watford (Claire Ward) all made timely and constructive contributions to the debates in Committee.On Report, we had a useful run-through of some of the issues. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made significant contributions.
	Although I am happy to reply to any new point that might arise during the debate on Third Reading, I now simply commend the Bill to the House, as it paves the way for us to give financial support to our oldest and some of our most vulnerable pensioners.

George Osborne: I will not detain the House for long. Many hon. Members wish to speak on airports and air transport, and I must be back in Committee at 2.30 pm to hear the Minister who is dealing with the Finance Bill answer the point that I made just before the break.
	As we have made clear from the beginning, we support the Bill. It is difficult not to support helping elderly people to cope with the very high council tax increases imposed on them by the Government. However, it is a strange Bill because the Government never intended to introduce it in the first place, but also because although it is intended to help people to pay council tax bills, the payment will go to people who do not pay council tax. It is also strange because it will do nothing to address the problem that the Government claim they seek to address: soaring council tax bills. It is worth reminding people, before Thursday, that those bills have gone up by 69 per cent. since 1997, or the equivalent to 3p on the basic rate of income tax.
	The Bill does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the council tax—that work will have to wait. With my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I met the Minister for Local and Regional Government yesterday to discuss the 8.4 per cent. increase in Macclesfield borough council's council tax. It is clear that a range of centrally imposed burdens has caused council tax to increase, but the Bill does nothing to deal with that.

Steve Webb: I commend the hon. Gentleman for using his lunchtime break from Committee to participate in the debate in the Chamber. As a thoughtful man, has he reflected on why the Government need the Bill? Why did they not simply change the rate of the winter fuel payment at the age of 70?

George Osborne: To be honest, I have had little time for reflection today and I had not considered that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elaborate—as long as he does not take 30 minutes to do so.
	The measure is necessary because, as the Chancellor admitted in his Budget statement, pensioners on fixed incomes and the many who are on incomes that are linked to prices have a problem paying council tax bills that increase much faster than prices. The Bill does little or nothing to address that problem. That said, however, we shall not oppose it. A lasting solution to some of the problems will probably have to await a Conservative Government.

Steve Webb: This is the Bill that happened by accident. The Chancellor came up with a proposal not realising that he needed a Bill to implement it, as we have just heard. The Bill is wholly unamended from Second Reading, so, in the interests of consistency, I shall not encourage my colleagues to vote differently from the way in which they voted then.
	The Bill raises a fundamental question. Let us suppose that the Government are right and that we need to deliver £100 to everyone over 70. In that case, why did they not use the existing winter fuel payments mechanism and simply change the rate at the age of 70? I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to explain why the Bill is needed, when all it does is replicate the winter fuel payments delivery mechanism. The Government could have increased the winter fuel payment at 70, and the Chancellor could have said that people could spend the money on their council tax if they wanted to. Why did the Government not do that? Presumably, they did not do that because it would have blown the gaff—it would have been an admission that winter fuel payments are nothing to do with winter fuel, just as the age-related payments in the Bill are nothing to do with council tax. Even if we allow that what the Government want to do is correct, why is the Bill needed?
	Obviously, without the Bill we would not have been able to scrutinise the measure as we have, but the Government's approach shows a degree of inconsistency. Our greatest concern about the measure is less the money that is paid than the money that might be paid with negligible scrutiny. The Division that we have just had focused on that specific issue. We do not want the Bill to set a precedent. We do not want Bills such as this one to appear in future—Bills that not only enable the Government to do what they want in a panic, but give them sweeping powers to do similar things in future with even less scrutiny. I hope that the Government hear the message loud and clear: although they won the Division, neither this House nor the other place will tolerate Governments giving themselves such sweeping powers in future. I hope that Ministers in other Departments, who no doubt hang on every word of our debates, also take that message to heart.
	The most interesting point to emerge from our discussions was made by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in his valuable contribution this afternoon. He said that Governments need powers to do things in a hurry—I think that that is a fair reflection of what he said. There is a saying: "Legislate in haste, repent at leisure". Our concern is that Governments acting in a hurry because they have got themselves into a mess set a dangerous precedent. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman suggested how that problem might be dealt with, but when the living standards of many of our most elderly and vulnerable citizens have been allowed to be severely damaged by an unfair local tax system and a local tax rebate system that does not work, and the Government's reaction is to invent a new scheme to tackle the problem because "something must be done", that is a dreadful approach to legislating.
	The roots of the problem are two things that do not work. We have a local tax system that is unfair because it is not properly related to ability to pay, and a local tax rebate system that fails woefully to reach the people whom it needs to reach. If both those problems were resolved, the Bill would not be needed. If local tax reflected ability to pay, the Bill would be unnecessary because people over 70 would not be subject to an unfair burden. Failing that, if the rebate system worked as it should, the Bill would be unnecessary because poor people over 70 would not be paying. The Bill is needed because there are people aged over 70 who are poor and who are not getting the rebates to which they are probably entitled, but rather than make that system work, the Government invent another system that will, no doubt, cost millions of pounds to administer.
	The Bill is an admission of failure—an admission that we have an unfair local tax system and that the rebate system designed to deal with that does not work. It introduces yet another scheme, one that will last one year. That raises another question: why is the measure to last for only one year? What are we waiting for? Surely, the local tax system will still be unfair and the rebates will still not reach the people who are supposed to get them the year after, so what is coming down the track? We hope that it is a fair local tax system, but we have seen no indication that that is what we will get.
	This is a real sticking-plaster Bill. It is a response to two separate failures of Government—the failure to introduce a fair local tax system and the failure to introduce a fair rebate system. What makes the position worse is that there is a third failure of Government: their failure to support pensioners properly. If pensioners had a decent income in the first place, they would be able to afford to pay council tax. It is because so many pensioners over 70 do not have an adequate income—in seven years in office, the Government have failed to deliver one—that the Bill is needed. The Bill could almost be called the triple admission of failure Bill—failure to deliver a fair local tax system, failure to deliver an effective rebate system and, crucially, failure to ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable citizens have a decent income.
	This is a sad day. Obviously, we will nod the Bill through because none of us will deny our elderly and vulnerable citizens £100, but would it not have been a better world if the Bill had not been necessary and the Government had not failed time and again on key policies?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not intend to detain the House for long. The debate is not about pensions policy as a whole, or about local government finance, although I note the interest of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in that subject. I understand that he was a special advisor at No. 10 when the poll tax started to unravel—

George Osborne: The Minister is not going to tar me with that brush. I did work in No. 10, but long after the poll tax had disappeared.

Malcolm Wicks: I apologise if I got that wrong, but I note—as will the Hansard reporters—the use of the phrase "tar me with that brush". The poll tax is indeed not something of which to be proud. If that is the first apology that we have heard for the poll tax, I welcome it.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked why we did not simply use the winter fuel payments mechanism—in fact, he was urging us to use secondary legislation. To have to be consistent is a terrible thing, but being a Liberal Democrat means never having to be consistent. It must be wonderful, but those of us in serious politics have to point out such inconsistencies.

Steve Webb: So why did the Minister not do it then?

Malcolm Wicks: There is a good answer to that question. The winter fuel payments system draws on the social fund that relates to cold weather payments, and it is a tribute to the Government that winter fuel payments are now at such a level that they meet a large proportion of people's winter fuel bills. Legally, therefore, that system would not have been an appropriate way to deliver the £100. In any case, this £100 is related not to winter fuel, but to council tax. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
	The hon. Member for Northavon was not terribly generous about the fact that we are helping our elders and betters, and talked about the Government having a formidable track record. I plead guilty—we do have a track record, as we have reintroduced free sight tests for elderly people, which were abandoned by another Government in a mean-minded moment. We have a formidable track record of 3 million individuals now receiving pension credit; free television licences for the over-75s; and winter-fuel payments of £200, or £300 for households where someone is over 80. I therefore plead guilty to having a track record of which we are proud and which supports some of the most vulnerable people in the community. We will add to it with £100 for households where someone is 70 or over if Members support the Bill, which I commend to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Air Transport

[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, on Aviation (HC 454) and the Government's response thereto (Cm 6047). The Third Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on Pre-Budget Report 2003: Aviation Follow-up (HC 233) and the Seventh Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on Aviation: Sustainability and the Government Response (HC 623).]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg .]

Tony McNulty: The White Paper entitled "The Future of Air Transport", which was published on 16 December, is recognised by many people as breaking new ground. In the history of policy papers on aviation, it is the first to make a comprehensive and integrated attempt to put in place a strategic framework with a 30-year horizon. Other White Papers, whatever the nature of the Government who produced them, were largely concerned with catching up with prevailing conditions. They did not look to the future or the 30-year vista established in the present White Paper, which shows that the Government are prepared to take difficult decisions and see that they are followed through. It shows the Government's commitment to modernising Britain's communications infrastructure to allow us to compete properly in the global economy. It recognises the importance of aviation in our economy and shows that we understand fully the critical balance between aviation and the environment. As I said, it provides the first strategic vision for our airports in nearly 30 years, and includes a programme of action to ensure that key policy objectives are met. As the Secretary of State for Transport said when the consultation was introduced, whatever policy prevails, doing nothing is not an option when it comes to making things happen.
	People who would make sloppy, rather than intellectually rigorous, criticisms of the White Paper might dismiss it for taking a predict-and-provide approach. That, however, is an easy canard, as early drafts of the White Paper gave three graded demand curves on future aviation ranging from 400 to 600 million passenger movements. Total capacity will be nowhere near the higher end of that demand structure. Unless people have degrees in futurology or far-sightedness, they should not dismiss the White Paper for taking a predict-and-provide approach. That is not helpful, and we need a mature debate about the future of our air transport industry and aviation in general.
	We have already had the opportunity to debate specific recommendations in the White Paper, including those on Scotland and the midlands. On an estimates day we had a useful but limited debate on the document itself, and I am pleased that we have a chance to debate it again today. I should like to paint a picture showing where we are six months after its publication and update the House on the way in which the Government and others are developing some of its recommendations in advance of the progress report that we intend to publish in 2006.
	I am delighted that there is a great deal of interest in our debate. Even with the extended time now available, there is still a limit on Back Benchers' speeches. It is important that the Government hear people's views six months after the publication of the White Paper, when they have had time to reflect and resist any early knee-jerk reactions.
	Our priority is to focus on realising the objectives set out in the White Paper; to ensure that the best use is made of existing airport capacity and that regional airports, where appropriate, continue to grow; and to follow up the commitment to increase capacity in the south-east of England. We have not been idle in the six months following 16 December, and work is already in hand. I shall set out what has been achieved so far and, more importantly, what we expect to happen next. I have been encouraged by the airport operators' positive response to the White Paper and their quick reactions in taking the policy forward. I hope that that will continue. I fully accept that communities close to all airports, not simply those earmarked for expansion, should have clear information about their development in the next 10, 15 or 30 years. We have asked every airport to produce a master plan by the end of the year, and we will consult on their form and timetable. Airports that will undergo lesser expansion, as well as those seeking to achieve significant increases in capacity, should explain how they might expand and, within their region, grow in spatial and economic capacity.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman said that he had asked every airport to produce a report. Does he agree that we can prevent misunderstandings and knee-jerk reactions by keeping local communities close to airports up to date with what is happening at all times? My experience is that that helps to get the truth across. If he is already doing so, is he prepared to give a step-by-step explanation of progress?

Tony McNulty: On balance, I agree, with the exception of the phrase "at all times." It may not be appropriate to tell communities that certain meetings or processes are unfolding if there is not a tangible end product. With that minor quibble, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and shall look at specific issues affecting Heathrow and Stansted, as well as larger projects discussed in the White Paper. Broadly, communities should have information about how their local airport is going to develop. There has been much discussion about development, not simply in London and the south-east but in other areas where people are troubled by the lack of information about the future of their airports. We are trying to facilitate the provision of such information—that is the essence of master planning, whether of larger airports in London and the south-east or of smaller regional airports. It is in the interests of operators and others to ensure that, even if they cannot take their communities with them as they develop, people are kept informed.

Alan Duncan: Apart from the big three airports, there is no statutory planning process for approving airport expansion or, indeed, verifying the plans. Given what the Minister has just said, will he consider instigating a procedure whereby he adds his imprimatur to an airport's plans and verifies them, so that there is recourse and redress if there is a complete collapse of trust, as there is with Nottingham East Midlands airport, and people do not believe what the airport says?

Tony McNulty: I suspect that however eloquently put, the hon. Gentleman's question is slightly mischievous. He knows as much as I do about the legislative framework for planning, and he knows that his suggestion could not be implemented without a radical—even more radical than we have already carried out—change to planning legislation.
	We are seeking master plans for every airport, including Nottingham East Midlands. Those master plans, as I understand it, will not have the status of development documents with the consequent implications for planning legislation, but they will be material planning matters that need due consideration under the planning legislation. I hope that in all cases there would be a good deal of consultation between the airports and their local communities about at least some elements of the master planning process, or at least some education about why the master plan goes in one direction rather than another.
	In the end, those are commercial documents and part of the commercial growth and general plans of an airport. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman says, knowledge will be important. The local community's trust and co-operation will not be forthcoming if the plan is perceived as distilled and imposed from on high, rather than being subject to consultation, but as to whether we will change the law so that my legalistic imprimatur is on the plan and everything comes back to me if it all goes pear-shaped, I suspect that the answer is no. However, I will check whether that is correct.

Mark Prisk: Given the previous question, can the Minister tell the House in what way the plans will be accountable to the local community? They are business plans—commercial proposals—yet they are to be introduced into the quasi-legal process that is planning. How will BAA's proposals for Stansted, for example, be accountable to my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)?

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman knows, ultimately the proposals will be accountable—if that is the right word for a business document—through the planning process and the democratic input into it. The hon. Gentleman evidently does not have the confidence in Uttlesford district council that others have. That is the most appropriate place for development applications and processes to unfold. Those are essentially commercial documents. We are insisting on them because it is important that each and every airport ensures that its local community knows how the airport will develop.
	In some cases—including Stansted, one would hope—planning applications will follow rapidly from the issue of master plans, because of the time frames laid out in the White Paper to which BAA is committed. In other cases the process will unfold over the long term. The hon. Gentleman knows that local and regional airports, especially those outside London and the south-east, will be at assorted stages of progress and development as entities, from Finningley, if I may use that shorthand description of the newest one in South Yorkshire, all the way through to Manchester, so their master plans and how they evolve will be markedly different.

Alan Duncan: rose—

Tony McNulty: I shall take one last question, but then I must make progress.

Alan Duncan: To assist the Minister in developing the argument, I think he is speaking about the planning proposals that attach to an airport as its footprint expands on the ground. My point was about the volume of flight in the air. That is where there is a big planning deficiency.

Tony McNulty: I apologise if I misled the hon. Gentleman. I mean all that. I do not mean simply precursors to planning applications. As will be clear from the consultation, when we speak of master plans we mean the growth and development of the airport in terms of noise, blight, footprint and possibly aspirational expansion into areas that are not part of the current footprint. Where such detailed planning applications are further down the line, we hope that that will promote the debate, discourse and information that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) seeks.
	The master plans are at various stages of development, and I accept that they should include many of the considerations that apply to Nottingham East Midlands, in terms of an expansion of capacity for flights and passenger movements that will take place within the existing footprint but will have noise implications and affect various other public amenities.
	The master planning process is right. We will continue to support the work of others on a wide range of issues, while respecting the ultimate backstop, or endgame: the planning process. We will continue to work closely with the regulator, airlines and airport operators to ensure that the right capacity is provided at the right time, at the right price and in the right locations. We will ensure that the elements of the White Paper for which we are directly responsible are provided on time and in conjunction with work carried out by others, and that they provide value for money for taxpayers. But that does not mean that we have stopped listening and learning. We want all stakeholder groups—I apologise for that phrase—to be involved in the continuing work, to assist us and, no doubt, to challenge us.
	The first priority purely in terms of timing, as outlined in the White Paper, is a second runway at Stansted by 2012. We look to BAA as the airport operator to develop the detailed design for a new runway and associated development. BAA is working closely with local communities, airport users and all relevant agencies in taking that forward—not by any means with the full support of local communities, but working closely with them.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early, but what does he imagine will be the immediate effect on the growth at Heathrow between now and the expansion that he envisages at Stansted?

Tony McNulty: Between the development at Stansted and any subsequent decision to develop or otherwise a third runway at Heathrow, my hon. Friend knows that there are various matters to be considered, such as Heathrow maintaining its existing capacity or considering with an open mind the notion of mixed mode and other operations at Heathrow, and ways of optimising, with all the caveats relating to strategy and the environment, the development at Heathrow between now and the development of the first new runway in the south-east at Stansted, as discussed in the White Paper. There is much work to be done at Heathrow before any decision is taken about whether, particularly for environmental reasons, a third runway is feasible. But that does not mean that nothing will happen at Heathrow till then. My hon. Friend's point is well made.
	We expect BAA to bring forward two planning applications to the local planning authority in due course, the first for an increase in capacity to 35 million passengers per annum, and the second for the construction of the new runway. As a first step to delivery, BAA has assembled a team to take forward development of the airport. It has also launched a home value guarantee scheme for about 100 houses within the airport boundary. The scheme allows home owners to sell to BAA at an appropriate time for the full market value of the property and entitles them to an additional payment once planning permission is obtained. I understand that BAA has agreed to purchase about 20 such properties so far. For those living very close to the airport boundary affected by noise, BAA has consulted on a home owners support scheme and is currently considering the responses received.
	In line with our White Paper commitments the Government today laid before Parliament the draft statutory instrument to change the regulation of the aircraft movement limit at Stansted so that in future it will be managed by the local planning authority. Hon. Members will know that thus far the limit has been set by the House, rather than the local planning authority. There will be an increase in the movement limit, which has been agreed between BAA and Uttlesford district council.
	The White Paper recognised Heathrow's central role in the UK aviation industry. Our efforts focus on considering ways of meeting the key environmental conditions for a third runway. I have said this before but it bears repetition: the environmental dimension to what the White Paper says about Heathrow is not intended as a sop to the green lobby while we let Heathrow do whatever it wants, nor is it intended as an impediment to development at Heathrow if those environmental concerns cannot be met. They are real concerns that must be met in full, as outlined in the White Paper, before we advance. Work is needed on those and other concerns before 2010 or 2012, as my hon. Friend suggested.
	A substantial programme of work is under way to inform the White Paper progress report in 2006. Air quality is one major focus of the work, and development at Heathrow depends on our ability to comply with EU air quality standards, including the nitrogen dioxide limit, which comes into effect in 2010. We will re-examine the assessments of impacts made before the White Paper, and three technical panels have been set up to review the data and help to develop an accepted scientific basis for further assessments. New research and data collection are also planned for later this year.

Vincent Cable: On air quality, will the Government be solely guided by the European Union statutory limits on NOx emissions, or will they also take account of ground level ozone, which, as the Minister knows from the King's College London studies published this week, already reaches dangerous levels across west London on 70 days in the year?

Tony McNulty: The three technical panels will review all the data. It is hard to discern where aviation-related impacts stop and car-related impacts start. The EU directive and the elements that come into effect in 2010 are important, but an environmental assessment will be made in the round—those elements must be factored in to determine the environmental dimensions appropriate to a third runway.

Brian H Donohoe: The Minister mentions a possible European problem. Have studies of environmental impact been undertaken at Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or other international airports?

Tony McNulty: I shall return to that point shortly, but I want to continue my little run through Heathrow and some other airports—the point is, of course, germane.
	To ensure transparency, independent experts have been invited to sit on the panels, and we are considering a peer review of the panels' work. Again, the airport operator has been quick to react: BAA is currently examining the operational aspects of mixed mode under a range of possible scenarios, including the existing 480,000 air transport movement limit. National Air Traffic Services is carrying out work on the airspace design implications to help BAA develop scenarios that can then be tested for air quality and noise impacts.
	I shall return to the point made by my hon. Friend at a more appropriate point in my speech. I am standing at the Dispatch Box two hours before I anticipated that that would happen, but I am sure that the House will indulge me and allow me to fill those two hours.
	I shall stop here momentarily and discuss NATS. The public private partnership now handles record numbers of flights, and NATS has a consistently high safety record. Last week's events showed us how skilled NATS is in maintaining a safe and efficient air traffic system in this country. Upgrades to the old flight data processing system at West Drayton were first tested extensively in simulation. Crucially, they were then tested offline on the real system on last Wednesday night. When NATS started to turn the system back on, the system locked, so it shifted to the back-up manual system and imposed flight restrictions to ensure that safety was not compromised.
	Those restrictions ensured that all incoming flights could land and that all flights in UK airspace could be handled normally—the only delay was to outgoing flights. The system was closed for rebooting at 6 am; it was running well by 6.40 am; it was fully operational at 7.5 am; and all flight restrictions had been removed by 8 am. Flights, some of which were cancelled, were then rescheduled by the airlines.
	Although the system is serviceable and is widely used elsewhere, it is not new technology, and the PPP is bringing £1 billion of investment to NATS infrastructure over the next 10 years. The replacement for the flight data processing system is one of the key elements of that new investment. The new CASPIAN system, which will be introduced at Prestwick in 2009 and at Swanwick in 2010–12, will be vital in ensuring high safety standards across the UK and in the London area in particular. Just in case anyone thinks that that is a coded message, I emphasise that any proposal to introduce mixed mode at Heathrow would be subject to full consultation and environmental assessment—recent newspaper headlines about a "secret plan" are just daft.
	The White Paper recognises that surface access solutions for Heathrow must be based around improved public transport and demand management. We have had an initial discussion on that point with key personnel and interested parties, and further discussions will follow. A series of work streams flows from the points about Heathrow outlined in the White Paper.
	I have met a number of MPs for whom Heathrow is an immediate local concern. Following those meetings—this point relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne—the key point is that I am struggling, but we will reach a stage where we can implement a mechanism to allow local communities to receive more significant feedback. These are still early days, and we have not been able to implement such a mechanism over the past six months, as I have said once or twice to hon. Members whose constituencies are in the area, but when time frames and deadlines have been implemented on mixed mode or other consultation processes, I assure hon. Members that I will seek to implement a device to keep the MPs concerned involved, if not some wider device to allow people access to clear information.

Jenny Tonge: The Minister must know that the very suggestion of mixed mode makes my constituents feel that they will never have any peace—even with half a day's respite, they already suffer a great deal of noise. How long will the consultation on mixed mode take and when is a decision likely?

Tony McNulty: As and when there are stories to tell and timelines and processes to unfold, I will let those hon. Members with a clear constituency interest in Heathrow know about them. We are not about to consult on mixed mode. The related work is complex and important and it must be carried out in full, so that the consultation has some substance and so that people are not led up and down the hill on more than one occasion. If I receive more information over the next day or so, I shall gladly write to the hon. Lady, but I suspect that I will not receive any such information.
	The impact of such a change requires much technical investigation on, for example, whether the change occurs within the existing movements limit and what form it should take, and such issues must be examined in detail before we put the matter out to consultation. I take the point that people are unclear about what will happen, but I would far rather that they achieve clarity by a proper consultation process rooted in research analysis and based on firm proposals rather than by a Liberal Democrat referendum that asked, "Do you want mixed mode? Yes or no?"

Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: With respect, I shall not. I was joking when I mentioned filling up the extra two hours of debate, but if I keep taking interventions liberally—no pun intended—other hon. Members will have no chance to speak.
	In this debate I am keen to hear from Back Benchers, but I am also keen to hear from Conservative Front Benchers. The last speech made by a Conservative Front Bencher on aviation policy was 20 pages long, but it said exactly nothing, and it will be interesting to see whether Conservative aviation policy has advanced.
	Environmental issues are particularly important for the UK, because of our leading role in international aviation and the success of the London airport system—the matter is not only an issue for Heathrow. The White Paper recognises that it is vital that the environmental impacts of aviation are adequately addressed, and, again, work is in hand.
	The climate change impacts of aviation are a serious concern. Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising, which is a global problem that requires global solutions, and the UK is showing leadership in addressing that challenge. Many sceptics and climate change-deniers exist around the world, and we must work hard to win them over. In February, the UK and other European states succeeded in persuading the rest of the world to develop guidelines on incorporating aviation in a future global emissions trading scheme, and we intend to press for the inclusion of intra-EU air services in the EU emissions trading scheme around 2008, and we will pursue that goal vigorously during next year's UK presidency of the EU.
	A new international standard for NOx emissions from new aircraft engines comes into effect in 2008. It is 12 per cent. tougher than the current standard—we wanted more than 12 per cent., but 12 per cent. is better than a lower increase—and will help to slow down the absolute increase in global NOx emissions. We are also examining working practices and the potential for new technologies to minimise climate change.
	It is fair to say that airport operators, too, are taking the environment seriously. For example, BAA is pursuing a range of policies to reduce emissions, including greater use of public transport, restrictions on the use of private vehicles, use of fixed electrical ground power, and the introduction of an emissions-related element in Heathrow landing charges.
	On 15 January 2004, we announced our decision to continue existing night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for a further year—to 30 October 2005. We have also undertaken to consult on a new night noise regime for those airports to apply thereafter. We aim to publish the first of two consultation papers in the near future. Furthermore, we will, when parliamentary time permits, seek powers to require greater use of noise charges, new mitigation and compensation packages for noise, and new legislation on the control of noise.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister will be aware that the Office for National Statistics recently produced documentation showing that greenhouse gas emissions from aviation rose by 85 per cent. between 1990 and 2002. Will he take this opportunity categorically to deny that his Department sought to intervene in the press release that the ONS intended to issue in connection with those statistics?

Tony McNulty: I categorically deny that, as have colleagues and others in the Department on numerous occasions. In the report produced by his Committee—the Environmental Audit Committee—the hon. Gentleman said that he was appalled by recent reports that the Department interfered with the publication of ONS environmental accounts. If he had rung me up to ask about that, I could have saved him from being appalled, because it never happened in any way, shape or form. That is what the chief statistician says, as does everybody involved in the process. As statisticians of some repute, they chose not to publish any information for which they could not reconcile figures from various sources. In fact, the figures on aviation were not a million miles away from each other. The aspect about which the ONS statisticians had serious concerns was the reconciliation of the impact of freight traffic on the environment. I can categorically and 100 per cent. deny that there was any interference of any description. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so distressed that he had to mention it in his Committee's report, but I can gladly put his mind to rest.

Brian H Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend believe that we are on a level playing field with European airports such as Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle?

Tony McNulty: I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to suggest. Certainly, much of the competition that the London airports—Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick—face is not from other regional airports, but from Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and others in the golden triangles surrounding London and the south-east and the equivalent areas in France and the Netherlands. Although we should bear that in mind, it is important that any increase in the capacity of airports in London and the south-east takes place in a firmly British policy context in terms of our legislative planning framework. Many people say that if travellers do not fly out of the London and south-east airports, it is not their natural second choice to go from Manchester or Birmingham, although it may be in some cases, so there is key competition from Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and others. Equally, some airport operators claim that the planning framework and assorted other frameworks, not least those relating to the environment, are much more liberal—in the true sense of the word, not that hijacked by the Liberal Democrats—elsewhere, so it is far easier to expand Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol.
	I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not seeking a level playing field in the sense of moving towards greater liberalisation, because we understand that although those airports compete with those in London and the south-east, any further substantive development of capacity in London and the south-east must take place within the consensually-based legislative and environmental framework that prevails in British public policy.
	In fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak, I will deal with some other elements when they arise in the course of the debate—particularly the development of several regional airports and cross-regional concerns such as public service obligations and route development funds, which relate to the connectivity of London with the rest of the country. I do not skirt round those matters because they lack importance—they are extremely important for people in the regions—but to allow other hon. Members to speak.

David Wilshire: I wholly agree that aviation policy and planning should be kept within a British context, but would the Minister extend that sentiment to keeping British control of the negotiations with the Americans rather than allowing the Europeans to sell us down the river to other airlines across the Channel?

Tony McNulty: We were doing very well in getting through a debate of such sensitivity with reasoned, common-sense remarks from Opposition Members, even the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), but the hon. Gentleman's comment is as ridiculous as his tie. [Interruption.] It is more a case of Piglet than Winnie the Pooh. In terms of the relationship between Britain and the US, the future of aviation lies in our developing open skies policy between us. That process is better served by EU-US talks than by bilateral talks. That position is held by all European countries, including Britain, and by the US—by everyone, it would appear, except the hon. Gentleman.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: He is not alone.

Tony McNulty: And, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—I should have remembered that in view of the Adjournment debate that took place the other week.
	The air transport White Paper sets out a long-term vision for the future of air transport in the UK. There is much to be done by 2006, when I promise the House that we will carry out a substantive progress review of what has happened since the publication of the White Paper. That review will show that we have made a good start. We are determined to get on with the job of delivering the White Paper's objectives—firmly within the framework of developing an aviation sector that can continue to make a vibrant contribution to our economy, but only within the clear and well understood environmental constraints that all hon. Members would broadly share and are outlined in detail in the White Paper.

Damian Green: I am delighted that we are having this debate. I should start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who has doggedly asked for such a debate week after week at business questions. His doggedness has been rewarded, and I am glad that Ministers listened to him.
	I agree with the Minister that this is a good opportunity not only to discuss the White Paper, but to take stock of what has happened since its publication. The House will be grateful to him for the information that he conveyed, particularly in the early part of his speech before his pugilistic instincts got the better of him as he drew to a conclusion. I want to deal with the serious issues that are raised by the White Paper and I hope that he will be satisfied by my attempts to give the Government some helpful advice about the policies that they are pursuing.
	In the course of the next few minutes—I shall try to be briefer than the Minister, because I am aware that many Members on both sides of the House want to speak—I will make some comments that the Minister will not like. I therefore preface them by saying that I fully recognise the difficulties that face any Government who find themselves in the position of having to produce a White Paper on aviation.
	We should have a grown-up debate. We all know that the opponents of any project for expansion are likely to be more vociferous than its supporters and we know the passions that proposals for new runways arouse. I expect that many of them will be expressed today, not only about Heathrow and Stansted, but about Gatwick, Luton, East Midlands and Manchester airports—and possibly airports at all points east, west, north and south of those. However, hon. Members should acknowledge that aviation has been the transport sector's most obvious success story in the past 20 years, not least because it has been properly subject to competition and consumer choice. We want that success to continue.
	I shall deal with the main issues in the White Paper and others that have arisen. They include some environmental considerations, thoughts on state aid for airlines and, most topically, the subject of the Transport Council later this week. The Minister considered that briefly in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The Transport Council could make decisions that have far-reaching and damaging effects on the future of British aviation. It is therefore timely for the House to consider it today.
	I shall take the White Paper on its own terms. It sensibly sets out a list of balanced criteria against which we should judge it. They are the need to expand capacity and people's desire to travel by air alongside a wish to minimise the effect of airports on those who live near them and a requirement that aviation should pay the cost of its activities' impact on society. It is impossible to argue with any of that. Does the Government's policy live up to their laudable stated objectives?
	When the White Paper was published, we said that the problems with it were twofold. First, it fudged some key issues and would therefore cause blight around airports as legal battles were fought. Secondly, there was little sign of the joined-up thinking that we are always promised, either between aviation and the rest of the Department for Transport's responsibilities or between the Department for Transport and other arms of Government. Six months later, both initial fears have been shown to be completely realistic.
	Much of the debate about the White Paper inevitably centres on runway capacity in the south-east of England. The problems of fudging and incoherence are illustrated by events around Stansted. Some sort of legal challenge to whatever the Government proposed was always likely, but it is significant that the challengers are seeking judicial review on the ground that the development of the policy in the White Paper was fundamentally flawed. There were four flaws: lack of commercial justification for a second Stansted runway; the potential for mixed-mode use of runways at Heathrow; the failure to allow comments on proposals to extend the runway at Luton; and the failure to give proper consideration to other options in the south-east.
	I am sure that others will want to deal with those matters in more detail and I shall therefore not detain hon. Members by developing the individual complaints. However, they show the disappointment in a White Paper that was a long time in gestation but, when it appeared, seemed to have missed some basic points and had been produced in a way that would not allow policies to be implemented without long, difficult and expensive legal challenges for those involved in bringing them and for the taxpayer.
	It is legitimate to ask whether the Government's favoured option of an early second runway at Stansted will ever come to pass. Most of the recent growth at Stansted has been in low-cost flights that have done so much to increase people's opportunity to travel. A new runway would mean higher charges, which may well drive away the low-cost operators. If BAA tries to fund it with cross-subsidy from the airlines that use Heathrow, another round of bitterly contested court cases will take place. It is therefore reasonable to question the commercial viability of a second runway at Stansted.
	The other issue starkly illustrated by Stansted is the apparent lack of communication between Departments. The Secretary of State for Transport says that he wants a second runway at Stansted in a few years because the surrounding area is thinly populated. Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to build thousands of new homes around Stansted. One can have a larger airport or more housing, but not both, without severe environmental problems. Page 33 of the White Paper speaks of discouraging or prohibiting inappropriate developments around airports. I hope that a copy has reached the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by now because there is no evidence that he had one before it was published.

Edward Garnier: Has my hon. Friend noticed a further contradiction in Government policy? The rural White Paper states that
	"protecting the countryside from further intrusion of noise is not a luxury . It is about preserving and promoting a feature that is genuinely valued by residents and visitors alike."
	Yet the transport White Paper states that the intrusion of noise in rural areas "is inevitable".

Damian Green: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point, which extends my point that the lack of joined-up thinking and consultation is clearly not confined to the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but extends to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The aviation White Paper illustrates that, because a successful aviation industry will affect millions of people who have no direct responsibility for it or perhaps derive no direct benefit from it. That is why I said at the outset that I recognised the difficulties that Ministers faced, but the least that people and, indeed, the House can expect is some coherence across Government. No Government in history have talked about joined-up government more than the current Administration, yet few Governments have practised it so little.
	Stansted is not alone as an example of the failure to bring Government thinking together. Birmingham airport is the Government's preferred location for an additional runway in the midlands. So it is surprising—I put it no more strongly—that the Department shelved plans for an expansion of the M42, which would serve the airport directly. We are all aware of the delays and frustrations of the west coast main line development. It is as though the aviation White Paper was produced in a vacuum, with no input from other parts of the transport planning process, let alone the wider land use planning process. Perhaps that is best illustrated by the White Paper's attitude to the third runway at Heathrow. That is another proposal that inevitably arouses strong passions on both sides—I daresay that we will hear them expressed in the debate.
	Whatever attitude one takes to the proposal, it is undeniable that it cannot proceed until we solve the emissions problems that would break EU permitted limits on NOX—oxides of nitrogen—by 2010, as the Minister said. It is equally undeniable that the main cause of the undesirable emissions around Heathrow is the cars that are stuck in queues on the motorways that serve the airport. The White Paper is silent about the way in which the Government propose to solve that.
	It would have been useful to use the White Paper to start a debate on the merits of ideas such as the Airtrack scheme or a spur to the Great Western main line, but the chance was missed. The truth is that two thirds of the emissions problems at Heathrow are caused by difficulties with the road and rail infrastructure. Unless those problems are sorted out, all the good efforts by BAA and the airlines to clean up their act will not have much material effect.
	In the past few days, we have seen a report that throws doubt on another part of the White Paper: the proposal for mixed-mode use of the runways at Heathrow. The Minister dismissed the report as simply "daft". I should like to explore that further and ascertain whether he meant that the report's contents were daft or whether perhaps the author was daft. The person who wrote it was Professor Peter Brooker, a former adviser to the Department for Transport on aircraft noise. He says that 42,000 people would be exposed to noise above the acceptable threshold under the mixed-mode proposal.
	It is possible that, after the debate, not just in the House but elsewhere, the mixed-mode proposal will still be thought desirable and necessary, but it would be better for all concerned if the Government were to lead the debate on this issue and to try to get all the factual information as soon as possible, rather than trying to delay the consultation about which the Minister had an exchange with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), in which he said that it would be held all in good time. It is inevitable, at a time when people do not necessarily trust everything that the Government are saying, that people will make their own calculations.

David Wilshire: As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are conflicting views around Heathrow. Is he aware, however, that the one thing that probably unites most, if not all, of us with an interest in the airport is that we are implacably opposed to mixed mode?

Damian Green: I was aware of that, and I dare say that the House will be made fully aware of such views by the end of this debate.
	The Minister will know that, for good environmental reasons, we need railways before we can build runways. In a few weeks' time, we shall see the revised version of the 10-year transport plan, and I can only hope that it will demonstrate more effort to integrate surface transport with aviation than the White Paper did. There are, of course, wider environmental matters involved. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, will no doubt have much to say on this if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not tread on his turf, but I will say a word about emissions generally.
	All of us who wish to see a flourishing aviation industry that is able to innovate and create new markets, in the way that it has in recent years, need to take this problem seriously. No national Government can solve it. Indeed, striking the right balance between a flourishing aviation industry and the need to control emissions is something that cannot be done effectively even at European level, welcome though the idea of a European emissions trading scheme is. In the end, we need countries from well beyond Europe to sign up either to minimum standards or to the use of economic instruments to cope with these issues, and we need to be realistic and to recognise that this is not going to happen in the near future. So any British Government will have to do what they can.
	We can and should apply increasingly stringent standards on emissions and noise, leading to the withdrawal of the noisiest and dirtiest aircraft. I think that I heard the Minister say that he would be introducing proposals to do that and, assuming that they are practical and sensible, we shall welcome them. If we are going to develop usable and fair economic instruments—which I hope is one of the Government's long-term aims—we certainly need something less crude than the present air passenger duty. If we are going to allow more night flying, we need much more responsive attitudes towards local communities from airport operators and airlines, involving insulation schemes and the purchase of the worst-affected properties.
	Much of this is for the longer term, but there is a vital issue to be decided at the Transport Council over the next few days. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State will be asked to sign up to a deal between the Commission and the United States Government that is supposed to provide a much more liberal regime for airlines in Europe and the US. I hesitate to intrude on the debate between the distinguished Chairman of the Transport Committee and the Minister about whether those negotiations should be taking place at national or European level, but the fact remains that they are taking place between the Commission and the US, and that is what we need to deal with.
	The Minister ought also to be aware that the deal that the Commission has negotiated is a bad one for large parts of the UK aviation industry. It will open up Heathrow to all US carriers, and give US carriers unlimited access to carry passengers and cargo within and beyond the EU. It does not give rights in return for our airlines to fly within the US, to buy a controlling stake in a US airline, or even to change the rules that prohibit by law any US official from using a foreign airline.
	Other countries, with less to negotiate with, may well feel that an imperfect deal is better than no deal at all. However, it is very important that the Secretary of State resist this deal. Even if he is isolated, he should stand his ground. With an election coming up in the US, this is the perhaps the worst possible time to hope for flexibility from the American side. Waiting six months to get a better deal would be much better than rushing this one through.

David Burnside: I want to support the hon. Gentleman's point by saying that American airline chief executive officers tell us that the best deal negotiated in the 1940s in Europe was the one negotiated by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the British airlines in the bilateral negotiations with the United States. That is why the American airlines target this country more than any other in the European Union.

Damian Green: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that, and I am grateful for his words of support.
	The Conservatives want to see a more liberal regime on both sides of the Atlantic. I am aware that some UK airlines would love to see the slots at Heathrow freed up, and I sympathise with them, but that has to be done alongside a better deal from the Americans. If we miss this chance, it will damage the British aviation industry for years to come. The Secretary of State has a heavy responsibility this week, and if he fails in it he will rightly be castigated. I hope that he does not fail. That is particularly important given the continued and increasing worries about state aids.
	In the wake of the terrible events of 9/11, it was perfectly reasonable for the American Government to support their aviation industry, but some years on, there is now a clear disparity between the subsidies being given to American airlines and those in this country and other parts of Europe. The issue of relative levels of state support for airlines is often presented in terms of the UK being virtuous and other European Governments being less virtuous, and that is quite right, but the difference between those levels of subsidy and those being given to American airlines at the moment is quite stark. For instance, the US Treasury recently announced that some $1.8 billion will go to meet pension commitments. I hope that such figures will provide a background for the Secretary of State when he is considering the so-called open skies agreement.
	As I have said, I do not wish to make a tour of the country in this debate to talk about every airport mentioned in the White Paper, because other hon. Members with particular constituency concerns will wish to speak later. However, I will mention White Waltham in Maidenhead—which has been given encouragement to expand—as an example of a location at which the local people do not feel that they have been properly consulted. It is a recreational airfield, but in the White Paper the Government have deemed it ripe to
	"offer potential capacity in the longer term for business aviation".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has pointed out that
	"the noise nuisance to local people is bad enough today. Just think what it would be like with business flights landing at White Waltham. The Government can't simply ignore local people's views."
	I am sure that similar sentiments will be expressed on both sides of the House about various proposals in the White Paper.
	As I said at the outset, I recognise the conflicting pressures on Ministers. We have an aviation industry that we can be proud of, but everything that it does impinges on people who have nothing to do with the industry and also on the environment. Ministers therefore have to strike the right balance. The White Paper tried to do this, but failed in too many respects. This reflects the deeper problem that aviation policy is not integrated with the rest of transport policy, or with the Government's ideas on land use planning. This causes unnecessary distress in communities around the country, as well as promoting uncertainty among airlines and airport operators. The White Paper has been a missed opportunity, and we will need to put that right in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should remind the House that there is an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from the next speech.

John McDonnell: Six months on from the publication of the White Paper, my constituents and I are not much clearer on the process that we will have to undertake in future to protect our communities from the development of Heathrow. I thank the Minister, however, for his courtesy and co-operation in meeting Members of Parliament from the areas surrounding Heathrow, and for undertaking to meet us and local community representatives on a regular basis.
	Reference has been made to the difficulties of keeping people informed and it is important to establish some mechanism by which we can keep the information flow going directly to our constituents. The meetings that have taken place, and any future meetings, have not produced and will not produce answers to questions unless the work streams associated with tackling those questions are well under way. I have some doubts about how far some of those have been progressed. If it is a matter of resources being applied within the Department, I ask the Minister to look again at the prioritisation of some of those resources so that the work streams can be undertaken more thoroughly and effectively.
	The White Paper concluded that Heathrow could be allowed to expand if the significant environmental problems were overcome with regard to air pollution. The first question that came to mind for my constituents was whether the White Paper was already out of date when it was published. Within the White Paper proposal for a third runway, BAA had slipped in a proposal for a sixth terminal. A sixth terminal would obliterate Sipson village. We would lose hundreds of homes, churches, community centres and a primary school. None of that was consulted on throughout the process of consultation leading up to the White Paper. It was referred to in only one submission by BAA, and in one paragraph in the White Paper. Slipping in a proposal of that magnitude undermined for many of my constituents the view that this was an open and transparent process undertaken by both the Government and BAA, and that undermined their confidence in the overall process.
	The second question for my constituents is: what is the Government's approach to tackling not only the threat of air pollution from a future third runway, but the air pollution that my constituents are suffering now and that they are predicted to suffer over the next two years? If we examine the different scenarios facing my community, it is clear that many of my constituents are increasingly facing the prospect of being poisoned by air pollution, most of it resulting from Heathrow, from both aviation movements and the associated car traffic.
	In relation to the scenarios given by the Government in their consultation papers, with terminal 5 built and a cap remaining at 480,000 traffic movements, it is predicted that by 2015, some 5,000 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide, which will exceed the European limit set for 2010. Even without a third runway, that is the magnitude of air pollution poisoning that my constituents are facing. If we maximise the use of existing runways, however, as suggested in the White Paper, by a mixed mode operation, the traffic movements limit will be increased to, say, 515,000—which is a reasonable projection—and 22,900 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide pollution within the local atmosphere. Those assessments are drawn from the Government's own figures. Even using the most aggressive assumptions in relation to potential future technology improvements, the south-east region airports study predicted that at least 5,000 of my constituents will still be exposed to levels above the EU limits if a third runway went ahead, and if the technology fails, 35,000 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide. That is the prospect for the next two years that my community faces, and the prospect that it may face in the next 15 years.
	On the basis of all that information, my community declared an air quality management area in 2001. We have started work as a local community and local authority. Since our latest report, which was published three years ago, and despite all our efforts, nitrogen dioxide pollution has not improved—it has got worse. The predictions for 2005 are that it will worsen further. We need action immediately. I know the commitment that the Minister has given on environmental issues. The decision was not a sop to environmentalists, but a real decision that the third runway would not go ahead if environmental targets were not met. However, we need action now.
	We call on the Government to undertake an immediate, urgent dialogue with the local authority, the primary care trust and local community organisations on the mechanisms, strategy and funding, if necessary, that can be put in place not only to monitor air pollution levels in my area and the health effects, but to start to reduce the air poisoning of our community. It is not an exaggeration to say that unless immediate action is taken, we are moving ineluctably towards a major air poisoning crisis in west London. The figures are horrendous and the health effects are dramatic already. Those figures have not been drawn by campaigning organisations; they are in the daughter and sister documents published by the Government in December, and in some of the work produced subsequently. We need to construct a programme of measures to reduce air pollution. If funds are required, let us consider what financial contribution BAA, the airport operators and others associated with the industry will need to make to that work.
	In the light of future air pollution levels, I do not believe that the environmental conditions will be met and I do not believe that a third runway will go ahead. In the meantime, my community suffers from some of the severest blight that can be expected around any major development. People cannot plan for their futures. They cannot even plan for the education of their children because three primary schools will be demolished if the third runway goes ahead. Already, 2,000 families are homeless and in temporary accommodation. If a third runway goes ahead, 4,000 families will lose their homes. They cannot plan for their futures.
	People cannot comprehend the process of planning from here on in. We do not understand the status of the master plan for Heathrow airport. Although the Minister has tried to make clear today what will be the approach in developing master plans for each airport, BAA told us in a document sent only last week that it will produce an interim master plan based on existing runways and operating restrictions. Therefore, it is not even revealing its hand on the final location that it proposes for a runway and on the development of the terminal. That means further blight and uncertainty inflicted on my community, and we are not even sure of the process by which we can engage in that dialogue to ensure that we are protected. If not today, then in future dialogue with my community, I hope that the Minister can make clear that process and ensure that our environment is protected in the long term.

Paul Marsden: May I start by apologising for arriving slightly late? I received a telephone call saying that my wife had wrapped her new car around a concrete pillar. Fortunately, she is not injured. However, we will no doubt be having further discussions later today about what exactly happened.
	I make no apology for the fact that I want to confine my remarks generally to the environment. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made clear his personal concerns about his constituents, but we must take into account a much more serious global problem that will affect the skies and the planet for years to come in terms of global climate change.
	We recognise that the aviation industry is extremely important, providing 180,000 jobs and about 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's national income—about £7 billion a year. Some 50 per cent. of the population travel by air at least once a year, and most people, on the face of it, thoroughly enjoy those journeys without always thinking about or appreciating the environmental pollution problems that result from air travel. There are serious problems in west London, as Heathrow has 15 million passengers per annum and about 1 million people live under the airport's flight path. That will create huge potential problems with health risks and environmental damage over the coming years.

Jenny Tonge: They are not potential problems; they exist now with the present airport.

Paul Marsden: I accept what my hon. Friend says. She is absolutely right to flag up the problems now.
	I welcome what the Minister said about raising the bar to prevent a further runway if standards are met, but it is almost inevitable that figures will somehow be found to meet the target and that the runway will go ahead. That results from the Government continuing with the Conservative Administration's edict of predict and provide. It is a first resort to say that capacity has to be expanded and that demand will therefore be found to meet that new supply. To me and my hon. Friends, that is patently wrong. Expansion should come as a last resort, not a first resort. Nevertheless, I give credit to the Minister for placing on the record his concerns about the environment and future problems and for saying how seriously the Government take that.
	Only this year, the Prime Minister told the climate group that we were
	"talking about climate change, which is I think, probably long term, the single most important issue that we face as a global community."
	Yet in spite of that rhetoric, the Select Committee on Environmental Audit said in July 2003:
	"We regard the proposed growth in emissions into the atmosphere by the aviation industry as unsustainable and unacceptable. Were such growth to occur, it could totally destroy the Government's recent commitment to a 60 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050."
	That Committee has been in ongoing dialogue with the Government and the Department for Transport. Ministers refuted a number of the points and recommendations made, but the Committee followed up in its pre-Budget report for 2003, saying that
	"as the DfT's own forecasts in Aviation and Global Warming suggest . . . by 2050 we will be in a situation where aviation emissions alone will comprise 70 per cent. of the UK target."
	The Government disagreed with that, but even Department for Transport figures state that emissions will be responsible for 33 per cent. of the UK impact on global climate change by 2050—almost three times the present figure. That is the seriousness of what we face.

Peter Ainsworth: I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he said that the Government had refuted some of the figures produced by the Environmental Audit Committee. Surely he meant to say that they had attempted to refute them, unsuccessfully.

Paul Marsden: I am happy to abide by what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, there is a dispute over the figures, but I am concerned that the Government's estimates err on the lower side of predictions and do not meet what the Environmental Audit Committee says.
	Passengers—certainly Ministers—do not realise the actual effects of pollution. It is easy simply to take off without seeing what comes out of the back of jet engines or understanding the impact it will have. Pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and dioxide have a huge impact on air quality. Already, a Select Committee has established, from estimates from the scientific community, that there are between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths every year from air pollution. Aircraft currently contribute 3.5 per cent. of global carbon dioxide emissions, and that will rise to about15 per cent. over the next 50 years. We can look forward to sea levels rising by perhaps 0.9 m, so the fens and the coastal areas of this country will suffer. Alongside the health and environmental impacts across the country, we will see the real effects of global warming.
	According to the 2000 report, "Aviation and Global Climate Change", which was launched by the Aviation Environment Federation, the National Society for Clean Air and the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, air travel produces some 0.17 kg of CO 2 per kilometre travelled, as against 0.14 kg per kilometre for car travel. What that means in figures that people can understand is that for every kilogram of air kerosene that is burned, about 3 kg by weight of CO 2 is produced out the back of, for example, an Airbus A300.

Alan Duncan: Given that technological advance is not reducing emissions from aircraft in the way in which, during the past couple of decades, it has successfully done for cars, the only way in which the emissions that the hon. Gentleman so dislikes can be reduced is to have fewer flights. What exactly is his party's policy to bring that about?

Paul Marsden: I shall deal later in my speech with precisely what we would recommend.
	Because numbers of aircraft are rising by between 4 and 6 per cent. each year, noise pollution has a detrimental health impact. Cornell university in New York monitored the reading, memory, attention and speech perception of schoolchildren, and found that noise had a real impact. Over a two-year period, long-term memory, reading and speech were impaired in children newly exposed to noise near a new airport. Furthermore, it was found that reading and memory deficits in the group were more pronounced 18 months after the opening of the new airport than after the first six months. In other words, the problem was getting worse and worse.
	This is where the British Government have failed. For seven years, we have had apologies. Lip service has been paid to what should happen but fundamentally, the "predict and provide" ethos has continued.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we had a predict-and-provide policy in this country, we would have another runway at Heathrow, another one at Gatwick and at least one other at Stansted? Will he please introduce just a tiny element of common sense into the debate?

Paul Marsden: For the benefit of the Chairman of the Transport Committee, I am happy to reply. The precise point is that it is not only I and the Liberal Democrats who are saying that—umpteen organisations, such as environmental organisations, scientific bodies and other very astute people, are saying exactly the same thing, that—[Interruption.] I heard what the hon. Lady said, but if we continue as we are the Government's present plans in the White Paper will simply not be enough to meet the demand, which is going to treble during the next 45 years.

Jenny Tonge: I suggest that the answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is that there would have been predict and provide during the past 20 years had it not been for the fantastic campaigning against the expansion of airports carried out by HACAN and other organisations.

Paul Marsden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the hope for the future: that common sense will prevail, that there will be a greater responsibility for the environment and the effects on people's lives, and that we will not get into that situation. If we continue as we are, however, that is what will ultimately happen.
	As the royal commission on environmental pollution said on 16 December 2003:
	"The White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. Earlier this year the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions."
	It says that, unfortunately, the
	"White Paper undermines those targets and continues to favour commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures."
	The Government recognise the problem, there is no doubt about that. However, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said, although it recognises that aviation
	"contributes beneficially to the economic development and social life of the UK . . . this was not without considerable cost to the environment."
	That is the pay-off. Are we prepared to accept it? The Liberal Democrats would say that expansion is perhaps the way forward as a last resort, but that it is not the first resort.
	English Heritage has recently said, in a briefing to hon. Members:
	"To protect the historic environment, measures to manage demand—and therefore reduce the need for increased airport capacity—are crucial."
	We have to manage that demand—that is what the Government's own watchdog on cultural and historical sites is saying.
	The Woodland Trust was particularly scathing in its recent briefing.
	It said:
	"In the last century, nearly half of our remaining ancient semi-natural woodland was cleared and replanted with conifers or lost forever to agriculture or development. If the White Paper on air transport is anything to go by, it seems that we are starting the new century having learnt nothing and are heading down a similarly destructive route."
	Those Members who say that this is not a problem and that we can continue to expand and everything will be all right should reply to those environmental organisations, which are particularly concerned—[Interruption.] I am quite happy to come to the solutions.
	We have to start at a global level. We need to amend the Kyoto protocol to include an emissions trading scheme. In particular, we must press the US Government to sign up to Kyoto. On sustainable transport, we must strike a much greater balance by replacing short-haul flights with long rail journeys. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has continually campaigned for high-speed rail links throughout the country, which would reduce the number of internal flights.
	We must continue to examine environmental standards on all modes of transport in order to reduce pollution. We must also consider regional airports. Such schemes should be dealt with through devolved powers, so that local people can decide whether they want such airports. A case in point is Bristol, where there are two sides to the argument. It can be argued that the trebling of capacity is not required, but there is a very good case for arguing that expansion is needed in the interests of commerce, and that such expansion should be located away from the south-east so that we can bring more jobs and greater economic development to the regions.
	Finally, we need an EU agreement on tax. It is clearly wrong that the aviation industry does not pay the costs associated with the noise and pollution that it creates, and it pays no tax on aviation fuel and no VAT on new aircraft. Liberal Democrats argue that the departure tax—the air passenger duty—simply is not working. It is another stealth tax and it should be scrapped. Instead, we should be working extremely hard—this Government certainly are not—to introduce a new form of tax on kerosene, which will begin to impact on airlines. The airlines must realise that they need to be far more efficient in the number of passengers that they carry and that they must invest in further new technology to clean up their planes. We have to get away from predict and provide and to say that enough is enough. We should put the environment at the centre of this agenda, rather than regarding it as a bolt-on.

Alan Keen: Before offering any criticism, I want to make a point that I have made before in this place. There is a massive difference this time, in that—thank goodness—we have a consultation process. The terminal 5 protestors—on that occasion, I was not one of them—had to defend themselves and to pay legal fees after the planning application was made for the terminal. But at least we have a consultation process this time, and despite the fact that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) nor I are happy about the current situation, it is at least good to discover that the Minister is listening. That is a massive improvement on what used to happen.
	I have lived within six miles of Heathrow for more than 40 years, and for 13 years I worked only half a mile from the touchdown point of the southern runway, directly underneath the flight path; so I understand what it is like to suffer such noise in a stressful situation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has explained what will happen if there is a third runway. We have all seen the television pictures of planes that look as though they are touching the chimney pots of houses, and the constituents in question are mine: they live in Waye avenue and Berkeley avenue in Cranford. To live under that is absolutely appalling. Even people who live two or three miles away from the touchdown point cannot go into their gardens in the summer for half the day—so no barbecues—because the situation is absolutely impossible. We cannot continue to ignore this problem.
	I am opposed to the third runway, but I should point out that this is the first time that I have opposed expansion of Heathrow. I was pleased to note that one Opposition Member who has always supported expansion is also against the third runway.
	I know at least one other Member who has changed his mind on the third runway. I regard myself as a friend of air transport and I was not happy when the Secretary of State launched the White Paper and sarcastically asked whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington understood the economic benefits of Heathrow airport. We have lived among people there for such a long time that we certainly do. We were not pleased to hear that question. It raises people's tempers when these issues are dealt with in that way.
	We have always been told that it is critical for Heathrow to compete with the Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt airports, for example. Over the past 18 months, however, we have been told that Heathrow should not be a major hub, but a second-level one. I am not satisfied that that position is based on logic. It may be a form of words designed to persuade people that we do not need a brand new airport where planes can land and take off over water. It is a form of words intended to persuade us that the policy has not changed. We are now faced with the Government apparently backing short-termism—not looking far enough ahead—which we always used to criticise British industry for. I was able to secure agreement from someone in the airline industry that I was right on that issue, but no one is admitting it at the moment.
	I am a friend of British Airways, which I believe has done its best for local people, but it is always governed completely by shareholders. If the Department for Transport listens to BA, it needs to know that BA will never say that it needs to look well ahead and provide a new airport with less environmental damage to residents. BA is continually criticised for having a virtual monopoly in the south-east. If we had a new airport in the south-east, I am sure that BA would not be the operator because there would be too much opposition. We need to understand that BA is bound by its duty to shareholders and we need to take that into account as we consider the issues.
	In my remaining three minutes, I want to focus on local people. I have already mentioned Cranford. The Cranford agreement has existed for many years; it goes back to the 1950s. There is no legal reason for it to remain. If there were no people living underneath the flight paths, mixed-mode operation would be quite acceptable.
	Before going any further, I want to make it clear that colleagues on both sides of the House often express two fallacies. One is that the footprint has got smaller, so that must mean progress. However, the planes would have to take off and land vertically for Cranford to be outside the footprint. For the people that I am talking about, it makes no difference, however the aeroplanes are modernised. The second fallacy is that the planes are quieter nowadays when they take off than when they are landing. That fallacy is often perpetuated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and colleagues in the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. I have praised HACAN many times and do so again. The reason that take-off seems to be quieter is that by the time the planes are over Richmond Park, Sheen and Putney, most of them have already turned away, so people do not even hear them.
	Under the Cranford agreement, aeroplanes taking off to the east do not use the northern runway, so people living in Cranford do not hear such planes taking off over their houses.
	That is why the television always shows aeroplanes coming in to land, rather than taking off. We cannot afford to allow the Cranford agreement to be destroyed by a mixed-mode solution that would mean that the people there had to suffer from even more noise. That would not be acceptable, as they already suffer enough.
	I was pleased to hear that the poor quality of the air had been proved, but one does not need to be a scientist to know that the air is bad. One has only to stand with my Cranford constituents in their gardens, or even inside their houses, when a plane is taking off to realise that the conditions are not acceptable. No hon. Member would be prepared to live like that.
	We must look at all aspects of the problem. My constituents have been happy to put up with what has gone on at Heathrow because of the economic advantages that the airport has brought, but things have gone far enough.

Mark Prisk: I welcome this debate, but I want to preface my remarks by expressing my disappointment that the Government have allocated only half a day to this very important matter. Does the Minister really believe that this short debate is sufficient to consider 30 years of air travel? I doubt that he does. People will conclude that the Government are not very interested in dissenting views or fresh ideas.
	Given the limited time available, I shall confine my remarks to the impact of the plans in the White Paper on Stansted airport. The decision to allow an additional runway there is both perverse and unworkable. It is perverse, not just because it runs counter to the original views of the inspector and the local community, but because it goes against the views of many people in business and in the aviation industry. The White Paper ignores the views of more than 60 local bodies, from parish councils to county councils, and the petition signed by 35,000 people that I presented to the House some months ago. It also overlooks the opinion expressed by the 89 per cent. of people who voted against the runway in the referendum organised a little while ago by Uttlesford district council.
	Yet the opposition to the new runway goes far wider even than that. The National Trust, the Council to Protect Rural England, the Woodland Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds all oppose it, as do many leading voices in the world of business. In a detailed survey by the London chamber of commerce and industry, 80 per cent. of the businesses that responded made it clear that they preferred Heathrow to Stansted.
	Even in the aviation industry, it is clear that many airlines do not want to use Stansted. British Airways has stated:
	"A runway at Stansted would not get built. Nobody wants it. Nobody would pay for it. The tarmac wouldn't even get laid."
	If businesses, many airlines and the vast majority of people in my community do not want the runway, why do the Government want to press ahead with it? The answer lies in the Government's intimate relationship with BAA.
	When BAA was first privatised, that close relationship was perhaps understandable, but it now clouds Whitehall's judgment. The result could be a runway to which no one wants to go, and for which no one is prepared to pay.
	My concern about the new runway is that it will prove unworkable, both logistically and financially. As the House knows, our rail service struggles already to meet the demands of the 12,000 or so daily journeys from the airport. The new runway would generate over 20,000 daily rail journeys, but the Government have no plans or proposals to increase capacity, and no funds have been allocated for that purpose.
	The Government plan that a new runway will be in place in eight years, but many people may not be able to get there. That is a bizarre scenario. When he replies to the debate, will the Minister say how passengers from central London will be able to get to the new runway, given that the 10-year plan for rail contains no proposals to make that possible?
	I said that the decision was unworkable logistically, but it is also unworkable in financial terms. BAA plc estimates that the project—runway and infrastructure—will cost some £400 million. As always, that is an initial estimate, and the figure will undoubtedly rise considerably. Who will pay? The White Paper appears to give a clear commitment on that, when it states:
	"The Government will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. New airport capacity should be paid for by airport users."
	That would appear to mean that Ryanair and easyJet, which represent 93 per cent. of Stansted's business, would have to stump up the vast majority of the costs through higher landing charges. But both companies have made it clear that they are not prepared—or, indeed, even able—to support a rise in landing charges.
	A commercial reality underpins that viewpoint. The market for low-cost air travel is very cost-sensitive, and the profit margins are tight. Therefore, unlike the mobile phone sector, for example, the money is not there to invest in long-term infrastructure projects. That is why the Government are now planning to seek cross-subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick to help pay for a new runway at Stansted. However, it is clear that such subsidies may prove commercially and legally unenforceable. One leading airline has said of cross-subsidies:
	"Virgin Atlantic is totally opposed to cross-subsidisation. Airlines operating from Heathrow and Gatwick should not be expected to fund an airport for which they did not ask and will not use, or equivalently, to subsidise their competitors."
	In my opinion, that is entirely right.
	Ministers should be under no illusion. Attempts to cross-subsidise will face challenges both in the courts and from the competition authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what will happen if an agreement cannot be reached, or the policy is successfully challenged in the courts. After all, the development programme will probably be under way. Planning permissions may have been granted and contracts let. Who will pick up the tab then?
	The Government say that they will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. What exactly does that mean? Does it include, for example, the road and rail infrastructure outside the airport area? Does "promote" mean that the Government would not be willing to grant planning permission to enable BAA plc to enjoy commercial development rights on its site? Does the policy of non-promotion extend to all arms of Government, including the eastern regional office and the East of England Development Agency?
	Those are crucial questions that will determine the viability of the proposals at the heart of the White Paper, but it fails to answer them. I hope that in his reply the Minister will do so. The proposal is neither commercially nor logistically viable. The original inspection said that a second runway at Stansted would be "an environmental disaster". That is true. The danger is that we will end up with a runway that nobody wants, few can get to and even fewer can afford. That is the reality of this misguided decision, and that is why I genuinely urge the Minister to think again, even at this late stage.

Tony Colman: I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable aviation. The group is especially pleased that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House, and we look forward to hosting the launch of the response to the White Paper by the Sustainable Development Commission later this month. I particularly wish to thank Jeff Gazzard, of the Aviation Environment Federation, for his work in providing information to Members on both sides of the House to better inform this debate.
	I have spoken on aviation in the House on several occasions, because Heathrow airport, aircraft noise and pollution remain the No. 1 issues for my constituents. It is always good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in such debates, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will also seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The link between our constituencies is that we all suffer under the flight path.
	Two weeks ago—the Minister will note that this is, as he would wish, six months on from the White Paper's publication and not a knee-jerk reaction—the Putney Society arranged a public meeting at the Putney Methodist church to bring its members up to date. The meeting was packed. Gerald Jones, the chief executive of the London borough of Wandsworth, spoke of his and the council's concerns. John Stewart of HACAN spoke about the forthcoming challenge to the White Paper, given that it is under judicial review in the High Court. I expressed my deep concern that the Government are not listening to my constituents, as is evidenced by the White Paper. Three key questions come from that meeting, and I should like the Minister to respond to them. I realise that there were perhaps clues to the answers in parts of his opening statement, but I should like to go through the questions quickly. The first question concerns the cap on traffic movement, the second is on night flights and the third is on mixed mode.
	First, will the 480,000 cap on air transport movements still be the legal limit for Heathrow? That figure compares with 457,027 air traffic movements in 2003. The Minister has said that a draft statutory instrument has been laid before the House today to allow local authorities around Stansted to decide whether any removal of the cap or any change in the number of air traffic movements is necessary. I hope that he will consider introducing a similar statutory instrument to cover air traffic movements at Heathrow, which should perhaps be under the control of the Mayor and the Greater London authority.
	Secondly, the Minister has announced—if I heard him correctly—that a new consultation on the 16 night flights at Heathrow that are the bane of my constituents' lives will be held in the very near future. Perhaps he could say what that means, thus enabling us to question him on the nature of that consultation, before the House rises for the summer recess. There are rumours that the definition of any possible new regime would relate not to the number of flights, but to the overall noise level during the night. Could the number of flights be increased beyond 16? Will the consultation allow for the banning of all night flights to and from Heathrow? Will it take account of the new World Health Organisation community noise exposure guidelines that have now been brought into play? I was concerned to hear the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), speaking for the Opposition, use the phrase—if I heard him correctly—"if we are going to allow more night flights". I would be interested to hear whether the Opposition are therefore in favour of more night flights, as that would be of great interest to my constituents.
	Thirdly, there is concern about mixed mode—the end of alternation on runways at Heathrow. Those at the meeting in Putney were concerned that the White Paper was ambivalent on the subject. I received a letter from the Minister in which he said that, as yet, there is no proposal to end alternation and that, if there were such a proposals, there would be full public consultation and environmental impact assessments, which could not be completed before 2007. Only then could consultation take place. Perhaps he can confirm that. Again, for the record, I wish to say, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, that I totally oppose the end of alternation. The Minister said that the press reports to date have been "just daft". I hope that he will keep us informed of the issues and ensure that the MPs who live under the flight path are fully involved.
	We meet three days before the elections on Thursday. I understand that the Labour party mayoral candidate, Ken Livingstone, opposes the third runway and any night flights. The Mayor's significant planning powers must come into play on those issues, as they did not on terminal 5. Given the European elections, I should mention that Robert Evans, the current lead Member of the European Parliament for London on aviation, has also opposed the third runway and night flights. If he is re-elected—I am sure that he will be—he will continue to work with the European Commission and the European Parliament for united opposition to night flights into major cities across Europe and to fight for new, more stringent noise and pollution standards. It is very important to bring together all the concerns that are equally expressed by those who live under the flight paths to Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle airports.
	I have previously begged the Minister to attend the International Civil Aviation Organisation meeting in Montreal this September, but he said that it is for civil servants only. Last month, I met Sharon Pinkerton, assistant administrator of the United States Federal Aviation Administration, and she is certainly going. She is lobbying Ministers for a voluntary emissions policy, not a mandatory one as the European Union wants. I ask that, at the G8 meeting in Georgia and the follow-up meetings, the impact in terms of global warming of uncontrolled aircraft emissions and the need for mandatory controls be on the agenda. Let me point out that the G8 meeting is literally "The Day After Tomorrow."
	The United States Minister pointed out that aviation fuel for domestic use is fully taxed in the United States, that tax being hypothecated to deal with environmental damage due to the aviation industry. I know that the Minister has met with his US counterpart: he might want to put on record his wish to follow that US lead in the taxation of aviation fuel.
	I note the Minister's commitment to meet local groups and MPs on whom changes at Heathrow will have an impact. To date, such meetings have not taken place with the Putney MP or Putney groups. It is extremely important that the BAA and all those involved in the debate, including the Minister, ensure that all those affected by the potential changes at Heathrow are involved and consulted at every stage. Sustainable aviation is possible, but it needs leadership from my Government beyond that which they have shown so far.

Francis Maude: I have only a few points to make—indeed, that is all I have time for. I accept the need for greater runway capacity in south-east England. I am not one of those who believes that capacity should be controlled, restricted or capped: the free availability of air travel is an undoubted good. In addition, I am a Kyoto sceptic who doubts that reducing air travel will do much to alleviate the effects of global warming. I am not a luddite—I accept the need for expansion. I have said many times that my preference is for the Government to make long-term, serious investment in a new airport, preferably on the coast so that flight paths can be over water and not over people's houses, and where 24-hour operation is therefore possible. That seems to me to be the long-term way to build a secure future for Britain's important aviation industry, but I concede that that argument is over—at least for the time being.
	I am not opposed to expansion at Gatwick—the airport with which I am most concerned from a constituency viewpoint. There are about 30 million passenger movements a year at Gatwick, and there is scope with a single runway to increase that number—an increase that I support—to 40 million or 45 million, if that is what the infrastructure can sustain. All of us whose constituencies are near Gatwick appreciate that it is an important economic motor for the area. We support the airport's continuing expansion, but that is a far cry from supporting either a second runway there, or the option of a second runway being allowed to remain open at this stage.
	Gatwick MPs might, at first sight, be thought likely to appreciate the Government's perhaps not so surprising commitment not to seek to overturn the legal agreement between West Sussex county council and the BAA that no new runway will be built before 2019. One might have assumed that that commitment would be taken as given, but it was not. However, our confidence in the commitment has been shaken somewhat by the lack of consistency in the Government's pronouncements on the subject of Gatwick in the past few years. In their original consultation paper, published in July 2002, the Government stated, in very clear terms:
	"The Government has concluded that an option for a new runway"—
	at Gatwick—
	"that could not be available until very late in the 30-year period of the forthcoming White Paper would create unnecessary blight and anxiety."
	Hurrah to that, we thought at the time. We all know that that decision was overturned by the High Court and the Government were forced to look again at least at the decision-making process that they went through, but we thought that the substance of the decision, which must have been carefully thought out before the Government put it in print in a consultation paper, would remain solid.
	Not a bit of it—when the White Paper eventually saw the light of day, that decision was changed in substance, and the Government proposed
	"to keep open the option for a wide-spaced runway at Gatwick after 2019."
	That is the Government's fall-back position, to be used if it is impossible for airport operators and developers to overcome the environmental hurdles against a third runway at Heathrow. One might expect that option to be bottomed out and a conclusion reached soon, but that has not been the case. I think that the Minister said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that it will be 2010 or 2012 before the issues relating to a third runway are resolved. In response to a parliamentary question in which I asked whether the Government would release the safeguarding of land at Gatwick when a decision was made on Heathrow, he said:
	"The situation at Gatwick will be reviewed at the stage when any planning application for a new runway at Heathrow has been decided."—[Official Report, 7 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1W.]
	Again, that postpones a decision on Gatwick. It took two years just to write the report on the inquiry into a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and the whole planning process took seven or eight years. If we add seven or eight years to the date on a decision on overcoming environmental objections at Heathrow, we approach the time when the legal agreement on Gatwick comes to an end anyway.
	The position is unsatisfactory for many reasons. When the Government published their initial consultation nearly two years ago, they said many splendid and bold things that I applauded. In section 1.3 of the introduction, entitled "Why are we looking 30 years ahead?", they said:
	"A long-term framework will provide greater certainty both about those developments that are likely to happen and those that are not. This will help reduce the anxiety that uncertainty causes."
	None of that anxiety has been removed. A maximum amount of long-term blight has been created, and the Government have done nothing to reduce it.
	A second runway at Gatwick would have a devastating effect on the area. It is already highly developed, with increasing pressure for development. The Deputy Prime Minister has instructed that 50,000 houses should be built in West Sussex over the next 15 years or so. The economists hired by the two county councils affected by Gatwick concluded that a new runway would require the building of housing equivalent to another Crawley. We all love Crawley dearly, but the prospect of building another Crawley on top of the development that is already being imposed on West Sussex is not viewed enthusiastically in my constituency or in the environs of Gatwick. The maximum amount of uncertainty and blight has been created, not just around Gatwick but around all the airports in the south-east. I hope that the Government will think again, and do what they can to accelerate the decision-making process so that the uncertainty, blight and anxiety, to use the words that they themselves use, can be lifted from as many people as possible as soon as possible.

Laura Moffatt: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). Gatwick is wholly within my Crawley constituency, and I must be one of the few Members to travel through an airport every day to work at the House of Commons. It is a fantastic airport that not only provides air travel but offers an excellent interchange for a fast and efficient bus service, coaches and trains. It is therefore a valuable resource that we very much treasure in Crawley.
	I have not come to these issues lately, as I grew up with the airport and the new town of Crawley.
	I have been a member of the consultative committee for some nine years and chaired the environment committee that put in place noise and track-keeping schemes and penalty schemes to make sure that our airport functioned properly and did not cause enormous trouble for the people around it. I consider myself to be a critical friend of Gatwick airport and continue to be so.
	It is important to recognise what a valuable asset the airport is, particularly as development goes on. The new bridge that has just been erected is a wonderful feat of engineering. Gatwick supports 26,000 people on the airport and many thousands more around it. The conclusions that I reach differ from those reached by the right hon. Member for Horsham. On expansion, there are serious concerns about the way in which Gatwick has been left on what Sussex Enterprise inventively calls the subs bench.
	Listening to the debate, I thought how poignant it was that hon. Members were speaking about consultation. We as Members of Parliament have a crucial role to play. That is why on two occasions I have held major consultations with the people of Crawley—not just those who come to me to complain—about what they feel about expansion. In the first consultation we had a large seminar in our town centre that brought together all sorts of people who had an interest in our airport—in noise issues, employment and all the features that make an airport part of a community.
	The debate in Crawley has been much more finely balanced than elsewhere. It was important that people were able to express their views about airport development. As in the debate today, there was complete consensus that the use of our airports must be maximised at each site. It is good to hear that. I am keen to pursue surface transport issues, because with a fast efficient service between Gatwick and Heathrow, we would get much more out of those two airports. We could use the two airports as a combined London hub, as is done in the United States, although I entirely understand that the principle of a single hub is the only one that succeeds, sad as it is for me to admit that.
	The continuing success of our airports is vital. The outcome of the consultations, e-consultations and debates around my constituency was finely balanced. A small majority felt that there should be no further development. Many of those people were closely associated with the airport. It is important that we take on board the views of those who will bear the brunt of expansion. In other parts of the town, the views were different. People wanted Gatwick to be part of the development of air transport.
	If we had time, we could have a long debate about whether the aviation industry should grow. I firmly believe that it should, and that Gatwick should be part of that growth. I want it to be at the heart of future plans, but it is clear from the White Paper that we are in a difficult position. If there were to be expansion at Gatwick, my preference would be for a close parallel runway, because that would mitigate noise and disturbance for many more people than would a wide parallel runway.
	We are faced with the enormous dichotomy of environment v. expansion.
	It is no good MPs saying that the environment is important, but that we should move ahead and ignore it, and it is no good their saying that the industry is important, but that the environment is paramount. We must find new ways in which to move forward, and I have no doubt that the series of debates on the subject in the House will continue. New technologies can be used—they have been implemented at Gatwick, and I have seen how they can reduce noise in simple ways, such as ensuring that pilots fly their planes properly.
	Few people in Crawley criticise the Government's approach, which is a brave move forward on one of our most successful industries. Wherever I go, people acknowledge that the Government have tackled the issue. Under the last Government, who ducked the issue, I sat through endless debates on the development of runway capacity in the south-east and on the south-east and east of England regional air services study.
	I understand the White Paper's objective. I want the Minister to tackle issues such as air passenger duty and fuel, but I also want him to think carefully about how we can ensure that all air passengers travelling abroad receive the same protection as those who travel as part of a package.
	The White Paper contains a raft of interesting and vital issues. The debate will continue, and, as MPs, it is our duty to ensure that our constituents understand that point—I will certainly ensure that the views of people in Crawley are brought to the House. The debate will continue until we reach a conclusion, but at last we have a Government who are tackling it.

Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), whose constituency borders mine.
	As the Minister knows, the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am the Chair, yesterday published the Government response to our report, "Aviation Follow-up". In doing so, we took the opportunity to take issue with the Department for Transport about numerous aspects of its response, which we considered superficial and inadequate. We are therefore happy to invite the Government to have a second go. Next time, I hope that they address some of the issues that we have raised, rather than seeking to avoid them.
	In particular, I hope that the Government will resist the temptation wilfully to distort the Committee's views on aviation. For example, the Government response implies that we advocate that the growth of aviation
	"should be stopped in its tracks",
	which is simply untrue. For the record and for the benefit of the Minister, our position is neither that the Government should halt the expansion of aviation nor that they should set out to satisfy inflated predictions of future demand, but that, bearing in mind aviation's impact on the environment, which nobody doubts, and the current and likely future state of the industry, it would simply be responsible to plan for a reduced rate of growth. If that course were adopted, the Government would save itself a major headache, which they are hearing about this afternoon, and millions of people would be spared from blight and environmental degradation—it would also help to reduce the disturbing acceleration of climate change.
	As I said, the environmental impacts of aviation are hardly disputed. Equally, I do not dispute the economic benefits that aviation can bring, and I listened carefully and with some approval to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on that point. My constituency borders Gatwick, which is an important source of jobs for thousands of my constituents, and Gatwick is generally recognised as a key driver for the local economy. Although the overwhelming majority of my constituents are broadly content to see Gatwick reach its maximum use, they emphatically do not want another runway.
	Turning to the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I were delighted by the unequivocal rejection of the frankly ridiculous proposal to turn Redhill aerodrome into an international airport, but I share the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham about Gatwick.
	The White Paper creates the invidious position whereby after 2019, Gatwick's fate is left entirely dependent on circumstances beyond its control—namely, whether pollution at Heathrow can be reduced to acceptable EU levels. The uncertainty of that was demonstrated when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that there was no chance of Heathrow meeting those targets and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) suggested that it was likely to do so.
	Where does that leave people who live around Gatwick, whose future environment depends on the decisions that are being taken? Gatwick has been given a conditional sentence but left with no control over how or whether those conditions can be met. That is a classic recipe for blight. Local people are rightly concerned about that. They are also extremely anxious about the profound and irreversible impact that a second runway would have on the local environment. Their concerns extend beyond noise and pollution to embrace the huge demand for extra housing that would be entailed, the loss of more countryside and the massive extra pressure on our infrastructure. Those concerns are not only for hon. Members and other people located around Gatwick—they apply equally to Stansted, to Heathrow and to every area where new runways are proposed. I regret that the Government have so far failed to place a monetary value on the impact of their plans on the landscape, tranquillity, heritage sites and biodiversity; they should do so as a matter of urgency.
	I hope that I can bring hon. Members some good news. The approach advocated by the Environmental Audit Committee is very clear and offers a solution to problems such as those described by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington, for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk)—even by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, if I could persuade him to be slightly less Kyoto-sceptical.
	We need to look again at whether expanding runway capacity on anything like the scale proposed in the White Paper is really necessary, bearing in mind the existing underutilised capacity. I urge hon. Members to look carefully at the Government's forecasts. Two critical interrelated assumptions underpin the White Paper and all that follows from it. The first assumption is that demand for air travel will continue to grow at an average of 4 per cent. a year to 2030. That implies a threefold increase in air travel over the next 30 years, which must be highly questionable. There is every reason to believe that at some point, probably quite soon, the industry will conform to the usual law of economics and mature into significantly lower growth. It is important to understand that that 4 per cent. per annum increase over the next 30 years would lead us to a position in which by 2030 we will need a new airport the size of Heathrow every three years. That is a ludicrous proposition, but the White Paper asks us to accept it.
	The other basic assumption in the White Paper concerns the cost of flying. The Department is assuming that the cost of air fares will fall by around 40 per cent. over the next 30 years. That was hard to believe even before the recent rise in the price of oil. We should note that for forecasting purposes, the White Paper assumes that the price of oil will remain at an average of $25 a barrel—right now, it stands at more than $40 a barrel. That seems challenging, to put it mildly.
	The Government also appear to believe that the voracious competition at the low-cost end of the industry will be sustained. It is more likely that many of the competitors will disappear from the market and that the industry will consolidate and gradually try to increase fares. Some hon. Members have also referred to increased landing charges. All that is supposed to happen without any new fiscal measures, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was right to mention as a possibility.
	It is beyond doubt that a policy that predicts a massive increase in demand for aviation and subsequently sets out to provide for it is a predict-and-provide policy. The environmental consequences are potentially devastating and I urge the Government to think again.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), but it will come as no surprise to him that I do not altogether agree with his arguments either in the Chamber or in the report for which his Committee is responsible.
	Let me make it clear: aviation will grow. It is like a child who is lolloping around in short trousers one day and the next day appears to be a full size male. That will happen whether we like it or not. We therefore have a choice—we can begin to face up to the responsibilities that that presents or run away and pretend that somehow it can be left to the forces of capitalism to decide our future.
	There is no question of predict and provide in the Government's policies. Were that the case, we would be considering the construction of a new runway at Heathrow almost immediately, a clearly delineated plan for a second runway at Gatwick in the foreseeable future, and growth in regional airports. That is not the Government's position. Some of us believe that it might have been better if they had chosen one of those three and decided to concentrate on future development there for the time being. However, such a position is not outlined in the White Paper and Ministers have not displayed such an attitude in debates.
	There is an immediate problem—much of our economy is directly tied up with aviation because we are considering the movement not simply of people but of goods. That constant movement is intimately involved in the development of aviation and we must therefore make several difficult decisions. It would be far better if we made them now rather than by default. Default is never a good decision maker.

David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the debate has centred mainly on the south-east, any decision on that area impinges on other countries in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and on the regions of England? The economic benefits or consequences of the decisions could seriously impinge on the rest of the UK. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that when the Secretary of State makes a decision, it will be in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, not only that of specific localities?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I confidently expect that that will be the case. Airports in the south-east, which are becoming increasingly congested, will, in the next five years, have to decide their policy on transatlantic flights and regional flights. At governmental level, we will have to decide whether we can protect the interests of regions or whether we shall simply allow circumstances to develop in which those who have the money and can bargain for slots at busy airports will be the only ones capable of getting into the south-east.
	I want the Government to state plainly that they not only understand the need of regional airports for access to the south-east, but are prepared to protect that. It is noticeable that the Crown dependencies have not even been mentioned. Guernsey was faced with the prospect of losing its slots. It believes that it is essential to have such access and was therefore prepared to purchase an airline. Even so, access is not protected in the way in which it should be in future. The problem will arise in relation to Scottish airports, some Welsh airports and those in the south-west.
	We have to deal with these questions now; they will not go away. The chaos will not only cause great costs to fall on the taxpayer, but complicate and confuse our transport planning.
	The Airport Operators Association has stated plainly that it understands the need for sustainable development and the need to take the populations around airports with it. It says that it believes in an emissions trading scheme and that it will undertake the responsibility of consulting the populations that are most affected, in order to develop some important plans. However, the reality is that unless the Government are prepared to use the development of master plans to sort out certain priorities, we shall simply drift, over the next five or six years, without a clear idea of where we are going to expand. Given the conflict of interest between the British Airports Authority and the commercial needs of the industry, it is impossible to accept that the BAA should be the only people deciding on the development plans in the south-east. This situation presents us with a real difficulty, and it will present the Government with a real problem if it is allowed to continue.
	A number of important decisions will be taken this week at the Transport Council. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will stand up not only for the interests of the UK traveller, but for all those who want to see the planned and sensible economic development of aviation within the Community. Heathrow is a vital hub—it does not matter how we present that fact—and Gatwick must automatically be the second airport to be of concern. But unless their interests are looked at in terms of the United Kingdom economy, and not simply as a bargaining pawn for the European Commission in reaching some kind of second-rate agreement with the United States, we shall all suffer. The House would then have to debate as a matter of urgency the decisions that had been taken.

John Wilkinson: The hon. Lady is making a most cogent speech, as usual. Is there not a grave danger that the United Kingdom, which has premier status on the north Atlantic route in particular, could lose that position in the longer term through its extraordinary decision to allow the European Union to negotiate on its behalf air service agreements that should properly be the interest of our country alone?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is exactly the case. This is frightening because, of course, the interests of mainland European airports will not be the same as those of Heathrow. How could they conceivably be? Nor will the negotiation of individual slots or services at both our major airports be capable of any simple solution involving half a dozen other national airlines. That would not only produce great confusion, but place considerable pressure on the Government.
	The production of the White Paper represents the first step towards a sensible appreciation of the fact that, as with so many other forms of transport over the past 30 years, we decided that we did not have to take clear planning decisions, and that they would somehow all look after themselves. The results of that lack of determination are plain to see in all the other forms of transport. In the one form that is really successful—aviation—the last thing that we should do is repeat the policies of chaos and indecision that have got us into such difficulty elsewhere.
	The Government have begun to confront that issue, but they must go further. They must accept that many unpopular decisions will have to be taken. We have heard hon. Members today expressing their genuine concern to protect the interests of their constituents, but we cannot allow this to become an esoteric argument based solely on some rather iffy science regarding what may or may not happen. We know what will happen: the economy of this country will suffer; people will continue to travel; and we shall not manage to restrict the development of aviation in the United Kingdom in any way. All that we shall do is damage the interests of the British people. The Government have the right idea, but they had better come clean and say that they are prepared to follow it up.

Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on a powerful speech, but I hope that she does not regard all environmental science as iffy science. It is the science of the future, and extremely important.
	This year is my 30th anniversary: the 30th anniversary of me campaigning against the expansion of Heathrow airport. That is 30 years of trying to hold back the tide of air traffic movements and the noise and pollution that they cause, and 30 years of broken promises. After the terminal 4 decision in 1979, we were promised no more expansion at Heathrow, and a limit was set of 270,000 air traffic movements a year. The Ministers of the day and the executives at the British Airports Authority must have been laughing all the way back to their offices. Almost before the ink was dry on the terminal 4 inquiry, plans for terminal 5 were announced. We now have the joy of a third runway to look forward to, and a sixth terminal will follow as night follows day.
	Heathrow is there, our hub airport, and the shops are lovely—"Airside Bond Street", as it was described in GQ magazine some time last year. Heathrow is there, so people come, so more facilities must be provided, so more people come—and it is spreading. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) have pointed out, Stansted and Gatwick are also in the south-east, and they are suffering the same fate. We, who have lived around Heathrow for the past 30 years, do not want the same thing to happen to Stansted and Gatwick. Why is it always the south-east? Other parts of the country need economic development and want more jobs. We are a tiny country. Why must it always be the south-east, and, of course, why Heathrow in particular?
	First, let us consider air traffic movements. I remind the Minister that the inspector, when giving the go-ahead for terminal 5 at Heathrow, limited air traffic movements to 480,000 per year. That was confirmed to me when I asked a question of the then Secretary of State. Some of my constituents were reassured, but others, including their MP and the redoubtable Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, were sceptical, knowing the betrayals of the past. Sure enough, when I challenged the present Secretary of State about saying that there would be 655,000 air traffic movements a year, I was told that that was with a third runway. But, of course, the previous Secretary of State had neglected to mention the third runway—economies of truth indeed.
	A new report from the Civil Aviation Authority in December 2003 admitted that numbers were underestimated—[Interruption.] I do not know what the Minister is saying from a sedentary position, but I know that among his many attributes, gallantry is not one. It was admitted that numbers were underestimated and that a third runway would mean 700,000 air traffic movements per year. Were mixed mode introduced, having already got a third runway—I do not put that past them, as they have betrayed us in the past—another 35,000 planes could use Heathrow, making a grand total of 735,000 planes a year, which boils down to 84 an hour. If we take into account daytime hours being more popular, that is about 100 planes using Heathrow every hour. That is ridiculous, but it could happen.
	Has the Secretary of State worked that out—as the Government have tried to do in the White Paper—in terms of global warming and adherence to the Kyoto protocol? A fuel tax is rejected on the ground that it would have to be international and that could not be achieved. The report talks of getting aviation included in the European emissions trading system. There seems to be no evidence that he will get any support for that. If he does not, where does his flagship policy of the polluter pays go?
	Why are the Government not making the aviation industry more responsible? We may think that it is tremendous to have extremely cheap flights. A friend of mine recently flew to Milan for £1, but is having to save quite hard for the return flight, which will cost £5.99. Is that really responsible pricing by an airline that is polluting the environment to such an extent?
	Air pollution is a serious problem about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon. I just say thank God for the European Union. Long may it prosper and continue to set limits on our environment, make us look to the future of our children and stop the appalling pollution. The Government are looking at the third runway like Mr. Micawber and hoping that something will turn up so that everything will be all right in the end. However, the White Paper admits:
	"on the basis of the evidence available, we cannot be confident that air quality limits at Heathrow with a third runway will be met, even with aggressive mitigation measures."
	Those are the Government's words.
	Most of the complaints that I receive from my constituents are about noise. People who are hard of hearing cannot hear at all in my constituency. Teachers cannot teach and children do not learn properly because of the noise. Sunday afternoons in the garden are ruined, which can be a problem if it is one's only day off. We are constantly told that an average noise level of 57 dB marks the approximate onset of significant community annoyance—that is a nice phrase. However, aircraft noise is not average, and it is disingenuous of the Government to exclude from consideration early morning hours during which the bulk of the night flights disturb my constituents.
	Page 33 of the White Paper recognises that
	"noise from aircraft at night is widely regarded as the least acceptable aspect of aircraft operations"
	and says that the Government will
	"bear down on night noise accordingly"—
	so why did the Government challenge my constituents in the European Court of Human Rights after they had won the right to a decent night's sleep? We are all worried that having won the appeal in Strasbourg, the Government will try to increase the number of flights at Heathrow at night. I beg them to defend my constituents' rights to a decent night's sleep.
	Those of us who live near Heathrow have been promised much over the years, but we have been betrayed over and over again. Will the Government please stop the expansion of Heathrow airport before the south-east in the 21st century is turned into the equivalent of the noisy and polluted dark satanic mills of the 19th century?

Graham Stringer: The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) cares passionately about her constituents, and I shall try to answer the question, why Heathrow and why London? The answer is simply that Heathrow is one of the world's premier airports. It is losing out competitively to Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol, and that is important not only to her constituents in Richmond Park, but to every single person in this country and our economy. The issue is not only local, and I may return to that point.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in our second debate on the aviation White Paper. In the first debate, I was moderately and constructively critical of the Government's policy. They could be doing more and achieving that faster, and I agree with many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, after I read the report by the Environmental Audit Committee, I went scurrying to the barricades to protect and support the Government because at least they understand the essential importance of aviation to the country. The Committee has not even grasped the basics that would allow it the benefit of criticism. Its report reminded me of annoying undergraduate conversations that one can have in which after three or four hours of arguing, one suddenly finds out that the participants have been using completely different definitions of whatever they have been arguing about.
	I do not know why so few of my hon. Friends on the Environmental Audit Committee are here to participate in this debate, but I want to say to them that providing accurate definitions would be useful in taking forward a difficult debate involving hon. Members with constituency interests to look after and a Government who have the country's interests to consider. I ask for three definitions. I have yet to receive from anyone a clear definition of sustainability. Everyone is in favour of it but nobody uses the same definition. It would be helpful for future debate if we could agree on that.
	Secondly, the leader of the Green party in the European Parliament said today that we should not subsidise aviation. It would be helpful if we agreed on a definition of subsidy. Actually, the aviation industry gets next to no subsidy by comparison with buses and trains, but in the mad world of the Green party buses and trains are considered not to be subsidised and aviation, which supports itself commercially, is considered to be subsidised.
	Thirdly, the Government have been accused of taking a predict and provide approach. Let us define that. The Committee's report also accuses the Government of promoting growth. Excellent, say I: growth in aviation is growth for the economy. I want more of it, not less. I am amazed that hon. Members on the Committee are against growth, which is an excellent thing.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. At the centre of the debate is the tension between a standard of living and a quality of life. The standard of living is for the 7,000 people who work in and around East Midlands airport and the quality of life is that damaged for many thousands by night flying and other things. The same applies at other airports. How are those things reconciled in my hon. Friend's equation?

Graham Stringer: The aviation world has an excellent record on mitigating and dealing with such problems. Compensation can be made. Double glazing can be put in. Houses can be knocked down and people moved. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said earlier that noise causes problems, and so it does, but he forgot to mention that around Heathrow about a sixth as many people are now affected by noise as were 25 years ago. That is the reality of improvements. I am not saying that the issue is an easy one, but that is the reality.
	On predict and provide, if the Government really were providing, there would be a mass of new runways in this country. In fact, one new runway has been built since the second world war. There is no provision out of public funds. The Government are not predicting what will happen; they are saying, "If this happens, individual airport operators should, commercially, be able to expand to meet demand." That is a completely different point from the one made in a phrase that came from the anti-road movement about predicting and providing, and completely different from the odd theory, on the basis of Rocasta reports, that that would induce extra traffic, which is only the case in specific circumstances. There is no direct comparison between road movements and what is happening in aviation, and the Government are right to deny that there is.

Paul Marsden: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's bulldozer diplomacy: sort out noise pollution by getting those pesky constituents out of the way. May I draw his attention to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which said three days ago that, in effect, the Government had abandoned their declared intention of adopting a sustainable aviation policy in favour of predict and provide? Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the RSPB is a respectable organisation, which knows what it is talking about.

Graham Stringer: In previous debates the hon. Gentleman has failed to tell me what "sustainable" means. When he does so, I will answer that part of his question; I have already answered his points on predict and provide.

Paul Marsden: rose—

Graham Stringer: I have relatively limited time and would like to move on.
	I hope that the Environmental Audit Committee will take my points on board. I should use the last half of my speech to mention something often mentioned in passing but not discussed as often as it should be; that is the air cargo industry and, in particular, the express part of that industry. I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on not giving in to pressure to designate East Midlands airport so that there would be control on its night flights. It is not as well understood as it should be how fundamental the express cargo industry is to industry in this country. Increasing numbers of businesses require widgets and machinery parts within 24 hours and for that, they need to have access to air freight that can get in and out very quickly. There are increasing restrictions on the London airports, and if East Midlands, Edinburgh and other airports are not allowed to have those night flights, businesses will move because if the cargo is not flown at night, they cannot carry out a 24-hour service. A CBI survey showed that if businesses could not have that night service, one sixth would remove and one third thought that they would lose business.
	To return to the position taken by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, more cargo is now going through East Midlands airport, but there are fewer planes. The airport has moved from chapter 2 to chapter 3 planes, so there is less noise. That is very good for the east midlands economy.

Andy Reed: As someone who lives under the flight path of East Midlands airport, experiencing that particularly at night, I can assure my hon. Friend that the noise of aircraft still disturbs many of my constituents. I agree with him on the importance of air cargo and the future use of East Midlands airport, but to return to his views on sustainability and noise problems, how far would he go in giving powers to local authorities and others to restrict noise without stopping evening flights?

Graham Stringer: There must always be a balance in such issues. The 57 dB limit is a good one, but to try to contract that, or to reduce the number of people within the noise footprint or to get support to them for noise insulation are among the ways of achieving that balance. Basically, the question is whether we mitigate the effects of economic growth on those people who suffer bad effects from it, or whether we throw economic growth into the rest of Europe. That is what some of the constraint policies in this country have done. Schiphol, Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle, Brussels and Copenhagen are all benefiting because there is not sufficient capacity in the UK system.
	Transport in national policy is a Cinderella service. Over the past 10 or 12 years, what has been spent on transport has changed from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent. of gross domestic product—although that is partly because of economic success, and it is not a great measure. The real task of the Ministers in the Department is not only to fight for aviation and to ensure that our industry is competitive with Europe, but to get the resources needed to give those airports the ground transport system that will make them as efficient and effective as possible. Without that, the airports will not work. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department have a tough job because they have to compete with education and health, but aviation is vital to the future of this economy.

Edward Garnier: I was interested to listen to the words of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) because I, too, want to speak about East Midlands airport. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is here, as are the hon. Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). We all have constituency interests in the thriving of East Midlands airport, but we also have constituency interests in ensuring that as it expands—as it no doubt will—it does so in a sensitive and co-operative fashion, without damaging the rights and interests of our respective constituents.
	It is interesting that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley thought it appropriate to mention East Midlands airport, and I accept that the cargo industry is of national importance. But what Members might not realise is that Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it is nowadays called, is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which, even though it is a public limited company, is wholly owned by the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester.
	The former leader of Manchester city council has just addressed us. He, as a Manchester councillor, had more influence over the governing policies of the airport that affect my constituents and whether they can sleep at night than I have as the Member of Parliament for Harborough. My constituents cannot even buy shares in Manchester Airports Group and attend the annual general meeting in order to sack the board, because the board is controlled by, and its appointments are made by, the leaders of the 10 local authorities in Manchester.

Graham Stringer: The hon. and learned Gentleman is completely right about the governance of Manchester Airports Group, but he is completely wrong in saying that I had any influence over East Midlands airport. At the time of my membership of the board, Manchester Airports Group had not acquired East Midlands airport, so I hope that he will accept that I was debating this issue in the interests of the United Kingdom economy.

Edward Garnier: I absolve the hon. Gentleman of any personal responsibility for the damage that is going to be done to my constituents; I was using him figuratively. A Manchester councillor has greater influence over the direction of Nottingham East Midlands airport's policies than I have as a Leicestershire MP, or any local authority councillors have, be they councillors in the city of Leicester, in the district councils or in the county council; still less is the influence of the voters and individual residents of Leicestershire who will be affected by the increase in the number of night flights into and out of East Midlands airport.
	Nottingham East Midlands airport says in its publicity material that it is
	"the largest pure freight airport in the UK and a hub for DHL and UPS",
	which are probably the two biggest freight-forwarding companies operating in this country. It continues:
	"It is also now the ninth largest passenger airport in the UK, largely thanks to the introduction of low-cost services from carriers such as bmibaby and easyJet."
	None of us wants the economy to be damaged, and we all want jobs to be drawn into the east midlands. If those jobs are at the airport, all well and good, but a balance has to be struck between the rights of a company controlled by the 10 local authorities in Manchester—operating in Leicestershire—and the rights of my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, and those of the hon. Members for Loughborough and for North-West Leicestershire.
	It is estimated that in the next few years, if the Government do not control Nottingham East Midlands airport's expansion—they show absolutely no sign of getting a grip on this issue—the continuous disturbance that night flights cause to my constituents will become intolerable. At the moment, flights come into the airport predominantly from the west. As I understand it, there are few if any approaches from, or take-offs in, an easterly or south-easterly direction. The proposal is that the airport's capacity to take in freight be expanded, particularly at night. Of course, although cargo does not mind at what hour of the day it flies, the freight customer does. They like it to arrive first thing in the morning, so that when the office opens, it is there. That suggests to me that there will be a great many more night flights over Leicestershire.
	The Civil Aviation Authority was invited to conduct a noise assessment, and it did so on the basis that most of the flights would come in from the west. It now transpires that it was basing its calculations on a false premise, because there will now be two additional approach and departure routes. One route will fly over Market Harborough, and the flights will be so numerous that a stacking procedure will be needed over Market Harborough and the villages just outside it. What that will do for emission pollution, let alone noise pollution, time alone will tell.
	The other route will be from a slightly further north direction towards Melton Mowbray and between there and Nottingham. We are now going to be hit by an additional number of flights at all hours of the day and those flights will be completely beyond the control of the Department for Transport and, I have to say, beyond the control of the residents and elected politicians of the county of Leicestershire.
	I want to see the East Midlands airport designated under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow are so designated, and the circumstances on the aviation scene in 1982 will soon apply to the East Midlands airport. It is growing to the size that those other airports were then, and it seems logical to translate the regime that applied to those airports in 1982 to what is about to happen to the East Midlands airport. If we do not, the only control over the adverse expansion—adverse to my constituents—of the airport will be the planning procedures that are available to the North West Leicestershire district council. If that council is similar in its financial dimensions to the Harborough district council, it probably has a revenue budget of about £7 million a year. I dare say that the East Midlands airport shop will shortly—if it does not already—take in that amount of money pretty well every week of the year. The imbalance in weaponry, power and political influence between a district council planning authority and the airport company only has to be described for one to see the consequences.

Andy Reed: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right to say that a balance has to be struck between the expansion of the airport and the controls necessary to deal with the noise problem. What impact does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that designating the airport would have, and what does he believe is meant by the White Paper's reference to "stringent" noise controls? So far, I have seen no definition to help us understand what that means. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten us?

Edward Garnier: The first advantage that designation will bring is that the number of flights and the level of noise caused by them will be controlled by the Government, who are accountable to the House rather than to any number of councillors in and around the city of Manchester. I have no idea what "stringent" controls means; nor does the hon. Gentleman. I do not suppose that the Whip or the Minister with responsibility for aviation—he has temporarily absented himself, no doubt for good reasons—knows either.
	Both I and the campaign group, East Leicestershire Villages Against Airspace, of whose committee I am a member, are anxious that the East Midlands airport is brought to realise that it must behave as a responsible neighbour rather than—I say this quite deliberately as a Conservative MP—as a capitalist marauder. Unless it begins to realise that it must find a sensible and co-operative space in Leicestershire, it will lose out in respect of public appreciation and political support. I want the East Midlands airport to thrive, but I also want it to thrive in a sensible and agreeable fashion.
	The airport has produced a noise policy "10-point plan", but I want it to come up with some concrete proposals that can be enforced at the say-so of either local authorities or the Department for Transport. The intervention of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) highlighted the point. We cannot trust the organisation to produce a system that will operate to the benefit of the residents of Leicestershire.

David Taylor: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the campaign that he is leading in south Leicestershire. Is he aware that consultants for the North West Leicestershire district council drew up the so-called Rupert Taylor—no relation—proposals, but they were not taken seriously?

Edward Garnier: I wish that they would be taken seriously.
	I have 25 seconds left in which to ask the Government to invite Nottingham East Midlands airport and the Department for Transport to behave like the Ministry of Defence. On 4 June, the Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces wrote to me to warn me that the Royal Air Force was to conduct exercises over Leicestershire. We get no warning at all from the managers at East Midlands airport. They do not even consult the county council, which used to own the real estate on which the airport stands.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Alan Hurst.

Alan Hurst: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make no apologies for devoting most of my time to Stansted airport, which of course lies in your parliamentary constituency. I concur almost entirely with the remarks made earlier in the debate by my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk). It is no surprise that hon. Members of different parties should agree about the proposal for Stansted. In north Essex and Hertfordshire, opposition to the proposals enjoys tripartisan support.
	The county councils of Essex and Hertfordshire share the same approach, as do the local authorities in Braintree and Uttlesford, even though those bodies have been under the control of all three main political parties over the past few years. That unanimity was described in a poetic prologue by Mr. Eyre, the Queen's counsel who chaired the 1985 inquiry, when the proposal was to raise the volume of passengers beyond 25 million a year. The inquiry concluded that the target would be an environmental disaster, but the present scheme would go even further.
	People are worried about the preferred option in the White Paper, which is not the somewhat easier possibility that a new runway could be squeezed inside the present boundaries. The current scheme amounts almost to a gratuitous insult to local people, as the proposed site for a new runway lies well beyond the airport's present boundaries. If adopted, the proposal would mean that a much larger area of countryside would be destroyed, many more houses would have to be removed, and a much larger number of historic monuments and buildings would be lost.
	Does the proposal have any economic vitality? It may seem contradictory for people to be worried about what will happen if the scheme goes ahead, and also for them to ask if the scheme has any economic common sense but, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, Stansted at present is a cross-subsidised airport. Most of the flights from Stansted—well over 90 per cent. of them—are cheap flights at giveaway prices that do not make real economic sense.
	In an earlier speech on this matter, I mentioned the half-forgotten figure of Freddie Laker. People of a certain age will recall that this is not the first time that cheap flights have been available. It has happened before, and essentially it came to nowt.
	The worry for people in the Stansted area is that schemes are sometimes begun but only half completed. The result is desecration: monuments are pulled down and land acquired, but the scheme does not reach fruition. I do not suggest that airport companies are engaging in a cynical ploy, but it might be more profitable for them to acquire valuable land that can be used for other purposes after a time than to go ahead with an airport scheme that appears to be a pure loss-maker in economic terms. That will certainly be the case if cross-subsidisation from Heathrow comes to an end, as will surely happen.
	The shareholders of the major airlines will not put up with cross-subsidy on a scale that means that they pay high charges at the airports from which they fly, when companies such as Ryanair and easyJet can offer flights at giveaway prices. One does not need to be a corporate lawyer to see the potential for lawsuits in that area. Therefore, it does not seem sensible, in economic terms, for the BAA to go ahead with the proposed scheme. However, it could become the master of vast swathes of potentially very valuable land as it went about the process of implementing the proposals.
	Local people would find that equally difficult. They would lose all the things that they treasure—countryside, buildings and communities—and, even if the airport does not expand as much as is anticipated, the acquisition of land for commercial and other purposes would detract from the beauty of the area.
	One might argue that compensation would have to be paid, but under the Land Compensation Act 1973 only those directly affected—at least to begin with—would be fully compensated. The BAA would be required, under the terms of the White Paper, to bring forward compensation schemes for those who suffer from more general blight. Indeed, it is fair to say that the BAA has produced two such schemes, but they cover a very limited number of properties and the hurdles that have to be surmounted include proving a loss in value or a certain level of noise.
	It is estimated by the anti-expansion groups that the fall in property values in the Uttlesford district is already some £28,000 for the average property, compared with the rest of the region. Properties in that part of the world are fairly expensive, but that leads to the other unanswered question on expansion for Stansted: where will the people who work at an expanded airport live? We do not have an overabundant supply of economic housing in Braintree or Uttlesford. The only way for the necessary labour force to reach the area, which has almost no unemployment, is up the M11 or along the A120, which is about to be dualled. They will almost exclusively have to travel by private transport, and therefore the benefit of the road improvements that we have seen recently will be lost, because the weight of traffic will increase manyfold.
	The railway connection does not have the capacity to bring in the numbers of passengers contemplated. The White Paper says that all the issues connected with the expansion will be a matter for the airport operators, but I cannot imagine that the BAA will say to its shareholders that they will need to pay for an expanded rail link—or for expanded road capacity, for that matter. If the expansion goes ahead, the burden will fall on the taxpayers to make it even halfway economically viable. For that and other reasons, which time prevents me from elaborating, I oppose the expansion of Stansted, and I think that my constituents share that view.

John Wilkinson: I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his speech, but I had to attend a civic funeral in my constituency. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I am sure that I would endorse his remarks.
	It was notable that Members from both sides of the House who have constituencies near Heathrow airport opposed the building of a third east-west runway there. Some hon. Members who have always supported the full development of the airport, including the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) and myself, believe that a further runway would be unacceptable on environmental grounds. To locate a runway to the north of Heathrow, between the A4 and the M4, in an area of green belt with no proper surface access—or tube access, where an additional terminal and parking facilities would be necessary—is wholly unacceptable. It would also cause great damage to Harmondsworth village and its historic sites.
	The Government have rightly adopted stricter criteria for engine emission pollution when considering whether a third runway should be built. It is not acceptable, for all Londoners, and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. The White Paper is half sensible, although I am in serious disagreement with one of its suggestions.
	The Government are correct to take a gradualist approach. The future of air transport is exceedingly uncertain. We are correct also in trying to make the best use of existing facilities, rather than going down the predict and provide route, which many hon. Members have described.
	It is noteworthy that those who really understand aviation—such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Transport Committee and whose authority on these matters we applaud, and the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt)—all spoke eloquently about civil aviation's economic benefits to this country. We are all deeply saddened that, during our political lifetimes, we have seen great industries virtually disappear from the United Kingdom—shipbuilding, textiles, whole swathes of engineering, and much of motor and motor-bike manufacture too to a large extent—but civil air transport is a great provider of jobs. It brings prosperity to whole regions of the country that otherwise would have been passed by, and it brings in a great deal of foreign exchange to Britain, which we so badly need.
	The Government also need a measure of commendation for stressing the regional development aspect of civil aviation. One has only to consider the crucial factor of air access for the highlands and islands and air access to important airports from the Crown dependencies, alluded to by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I chair the British Manx group, and the fact that airlines from the Isle of Man no longer have access to Heathrow is regretted on the island.
	There are many considerations, and I wish to put before the House some of the uncertainties. Given the current oil price rise, there is a possibility of a serious reduction in the profit expectations of the low-cost carriers, Ryanair and easyJet. Big airlines, such as United and US Airways have been under chapter 11 protection in the United States. Swissair and Sabena went bankrupt after the 11 September tragedy. Alitalia is now in trouble. The conjunction of the effect of the 11 September atrocities and the rise in oil prices poses a serious challenge to the industry, as does equipment: whether major carriers will go down the A380 route—ultra-large, jumbo-sized airliners—or something like the 7E7 ultra-economic airliner, which is better suited to point-to-point operations.
	Another key question is whether hub airports are of prime importance or whether, in the new civil air transport environment, there will be further development of point-to-point services. I rather incline towards the latter, but if we want to develop civil aviation in Britain, we must also take into account the social and economic changes in the south-east of England. With the Thames gateway developments and the likelihood of further growth in population, business and economic activities in the corridor from north-east London, to Stansted and on towards Cambridge, the Government are correct to go for a second runway at Stansted. That is where much of the growth in civil air transport movements has occurred because of the burgeoning of the low-cost carrier sector.
	It would be sensible in the longer term to start the further development of Stansted, which could be a better location for a major hub airport than Heathrow in the decades ahead, although the Government disagree. If there were, for example, further al-Qaeda terrorist outrages, people would question the wisdom of building a further runway at Heathrow, in the middle of a very densely populated area. I doubt the wisdom of that.
	There is still further potential—is there not?—for high-speed rail in Europe, and we have only started to see the beginning of its development in this country, with the eventual extension of the channel link to St. Pancras.
	The Government are on the right track, especially in terms of the development to the full of existing airports. As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who is another aviation authority, might tell us, Luton airport offers immense potential, with the extension to the runway foreseen in the White Paper and the development of a parallel taxiway and other infrastructure and services. Birmingham, too, has potential with another runway, as does Edinburgh. We are, by an large, getting it right. What pleases me most is that we as a country are acknowledging that aviation is a golden goose for Britain. We must not let the Liberal Democrats kill it with crazy tax impositions.

Kelvin Hopkins: I rise to praise the Government for their wise decision to give the go-ahead to the expansion of Luton airport, making the maximum use of its single runway—extended, of course. That is a significant development, which will quadruple the number of passengers going through the airport and make a serious contribution to passenger numbers in south-east England. In addition, the airport is a major economic boon to my constituency. Although situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), my constituents look to the airport for jobs following the decline in manufacturing in my area. The Vauxhall and Electrolux plants have closed, as have many smaller companies, so Luton airport is important to us and I applaud the Government for their decision.
	We would like the Government to encourage and facilitate Luton airport's expansion at an early date, because Luton could solve some of the problems that we have been hearing about this afternoon. A green light to growth at Luton could alleviate, at least in the medium term, some of the tensions and difficulties at Heathrow and Stansted. Initially, we thought that BAA was pushing for its own airports to be expanded and that Luton was being marginalised—indeed, I think it was on no one's radar screen but ours. The decision is testimony not only to successful lobbying by us, but to the fact that the Government listened to the arguments. We made the case and, in the end, the Government acknowledged that it was a sensible one.
	We have heard talk of forecasts of the growth in air passenger traffic over the next 25 or 30 years. Forecasts are always hazardous. Passenger forecasts for the channel tunnel proved to be overblown—its construction was predicated on forecasts that never came to fruition and seem unlikely ever to do so. The salvation of the channel tunnel's economics lies in pushing a lot of rail freight through it, not in passenger numbers. We can make the trains faster and encourage as many people as possible to travel by Eurostar, but there will never be enough passengers to make the channel tunnel economic; vast quantities of freight are needed to do that.
	The White Paper sets out a range of forecasts. Some may prove to be overblown, but whether or not they are correct, Luton's case will remain strong. If the high forecasts prove to be accurate, Luton will clearly be needed, but it will be needed even if the lowest forecasts are not realised. We can then make a case, not for having additional runways at other airports, but for maximising the use of existing runways at those airports and maximising Luton's expansion on the single runway solution. I have here some figures, drawn from the White Paper and elsewhere, which state that maximum use of existing runways at Heathrow could result in an extra 26 million passengers passing through that airport, at Gatwick an extra 11.5 million passengers, and at Stansted an extra 10 million passengers; and developing Luton could result in an extra 23 million or 24 million passengers passing through the airport. Therefore, even if no new runways were built, airports in the south-east could accommodate an extra 70 million passengers a year. If serious problems arise in relation to oil or terrorism, or if we encounter economic problems that we cannot predict, or if we face serious environmental problems with which the world has to deal, there might be less demand for air passenger transport than we have come to expect.
	I suspect that those additional 70 million passengers will not be enough, but Luton can make a great contribution even at the lowest forecast. Moreover, if expansion of other airports proves unacceptable to this Government or a future one, there is the option of a second runway at Luton, which would make the airport ten times its present size. That option was rejected as unfeasible by the White Paper, but it remains a possibility in the longer term. Even in difficult circumstances, Luton might provide solutions.
	We need economic expansion locally to compensate for job losses in manufacturing. We have a ready-made work force, in contrast to other airports, who are experiencing labour shortages. There is significant unemployment in parts of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, even though Luton is in the south-east of England, so we can provide workers for jobs. I can say without fear of contradiction that we have the best further education college in the country, as it was the first one to be awarded beacon status. We have the capacity to train people locally in every possible skill, and have a work force who need work.
	There is everything to be said for expanding Luton and giving it the go-ahead as soon as possible. My only qualification concerns the master plan. Yesterday, I spoke to the airport management, who say that the time scale for its completion is too short. It is a time-consuming exercise that they want to get right, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to allow a little more time for the plan to be completed properly.
	Finally, to strike a note of current interest, I am pleased that yesterday the England football team flew from Luton. As an English person, I hope that they will win, and I hope that the Scots, Welsh and Irish will support us—but that is another story. The team flew from Luton in a British Airways aircraft, and we were pleased to see that aircraft there.

John McDonnell: There could be many more.

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. We could offer Luton as a base for some British Airways services, as we have the capacity and workers. We would welcome the company, should it choose to fly from Luton, which has a great future, and I hope that the Government will continue to support it.

Alan Duncan: May I risk shocking the Minister by paying him a compliment? Since the war, successive Governments have been extremely bad at planning. When Ted Heath was Father of the House, he was asked what was the longest period for which he had planned as Prime Minister, and he said, "Oh, about 10 years." I can therefore extend some measure of congratulation to the Government for at least trying to take a 30-year view or even longer. People might take a view of only 10 years when building a motorway, tunnel or airport, but time flies by, and when work is completed everything is out of date.
	Such a long-term view, however, throws up stark projections. The statistics that affect Nottingham East Midlands airport are of most concern to me, as they are to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Paragraph 9.25 of the White Paper says that
	"our consultation document forecast that there could be over 60,000 cargo flights a year by 2030, and a substantial proportion of these are likely to be in the late evening or the night."
	At a rough estimate, that could involve 100 or 200 night flights that, unlike Heathrow, would grow from a base of almost nothing. Because of current flight path routes and the volume of flights, there are almost no night flights to disturb our constituents. They are just beginning, and are beginning to annoy people. The projections in the White Paper, however, are massive.
	That throws up a serious question of policy. Does the current policy or any policy in the White Paper properly cope with the magnitude of the issue described in it? Is there a control or planning process that can redress grievance and adjust, tweak or change what is predicted so as best to balance the environment with the economy? The answer at present is no. There is no planning process for freight volumes. There is a planning process for the expansion of an airport apron, but there is no planning process for where those flights go and how many of them will be permitted.
	The Minister has yet to answer the question how great the scale and impact of such a change must be before it triggers some sort of formal approval regime. I cannot think of any other area of activity that has such widespread detrimental consequences which is not subject to some sort of control. Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow, the three big airports, are subject to control, but no other airport is. Nottingham East Midlands airport, which will have 60,000 cargo flights well within our lifetime, is subject to no regulation whatever. There is nothing contractual or statutory that is able to govern its growth.
	The Minister spoke about master plans. I am not familiar with master plans and I do not know much about them, but I do not see that they have the force of law, compulsion or influence that a growing number of our constituents are demanding. Perhaps the Minister would tell me that there is a process of consultation. Our experience of that so far is pretty bitter. Apparently it has been going on for a year— no one knew about it. A letter to a council provoked a letter back, and it is only in the past two or three months that people have begun to comprehend the consequence of the changes being proposed. Our constituents are shocked. They did not know that that was happening, and they are shocked by their lack of power as individuals through their representatives and through the process of government, consultation, appeal and planning to do anything about it.

John McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I want to see the point through, if I may.
	We were told at first that there would be a few night cargo flights coming in down the A47 towards the south-east of Leicester, and that they would be at about 8,000 or 10,000 ft so we would not hear a thing. We are suspicious that the flight path has been shifted from west-to-east to east-to-west, so they are now coming over all of rural east Leicestershire, that the numbers are enormously higher than anyone has ever been prepared to admit, and that the altitude of the flight path is nothing like that described to us by Nottingham East Midlands airport.
	We have no confidence in what we are being told. We do not trust what we are being told. In the White Paper there is nothing that describes a process whereby we can invoke our power as representatives to reflect our constituents' concerns. In fact, matters are worse. Paragraph 9.28 states:
	"At the same time, given the particular importance of air freight to the future national and regional economy, and of East Midlands Airport as a centre of these operations, we consider that the projected expansion of air freight operations at East Midlands should be permitted."

Graham Stringer: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman making a good case for consultation and for regulation. I am sure the House listens to that with sympathy and understanding. Does he accept the case that the country needs night flights for express cargo somewhere in the country?

Alan Duncan: Yes, I do, but I am perturbed, because it seems that established patterns of flight are about to be turned on their heads. Those who are used to flights going over their houses will suddenly find that flights—potentially 60,000 flights a year within 30 years—are moved to areas in which people have no experience or expectation of them, which is what I object to. The process by which flights are apparently being switched on the sly causes severe upset for my constituents, the constituents of my neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, and others. We are suspicious of the process—in fact, a process is not apparent, and the White Paper does not contain one.
	Returning to my earlier intervention on the Minister, we must try to find a way to bridge the complete gulf in trust between the management of Nottingham East Midlands airport and MPs, councillors and parish councillors representing constituents in east Leicestershire, who are concerned not to be cheated or deceived. We need a means to join the facts with the administrative process of approving or amending the apparent proposal.
	I should like the Minister to invoke his authority and verify the proposals at Nottingham East Midlands airport, which would allow us to hold the airport to account. We must record what the airport says and monitor what subsequently happens. We cannot identify culprits 8,000 ft up in the air from ground level, and we need administrative co-operation and honesty to link the concerns and observations of people on the ground with the noise in the air.
	On noise, although 57 dB might be okay in a busy urban area with a lot of background noise, it is not good in a rural village in east Leicestershire.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this late stage in his remarks. If 60,000 cargo trucks were to move down the A47 or the A6, the Department for Transport might do something, but it seems utterly careless about 60,000 cargo aeroplanes flying over the A47 or the A6.

Alan Duncan: I totally agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
	In the few seconds that I have left, I ask the Minister in a spirit of co-operation to establish a process that goes beyond the White Paper to engender trust, which is severely lacking at the moment, on NEMA's planned expansion. Trust has not been established and the facts have not been verified. My constituents are suspicious that thousands of planes will suddenly start flying over their houses at relatively low levels in the middle of the night and that they will have no statutory opportunity to amend the proposal or to object to it.
	In conclusion, I ask the Minister to confirm that he will work with all of us who are involved in the matter to ensure that the threat that unfairly looms over our quiet rural environment does not turn into reality.

Albert Owen: I shall concentrate on the Welsh dimension to air travel. Indeed, I am the first Member from the Celtic fringes to speak in this debate, although I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is trying to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The White Paper is important for the future of aviation in the United Kingdom, and it is also important for the future of integrated transport per se. True integration means road, rail, sea and air, and as someone who represents an island constituency I am conscious of the needs of all those modes of transport. The White Paper is comprehensive and it contains the first forward planning for many decades.
	Historically, principal towns grew around seaports, and rail and road links followed much later. The challenge for the future is that we plan to integrate extended airports into the modern transport system. Regional air services in general, and in Wales in particular, are important and new. I shall concentrate on the maximisation of the economic benefit to periphery areas that are served by conventional modes of transport.
	Aviation makes a great contribution to employment, trade and the economy in general, but that does not detract from the important issues of the environment and the planning process that hon. Members have mentioned.
	The White Paper acknowledges the importance of links with the south-east and other regions of England, as well as the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, it suggests increasing the capacity of the major airports and possible enhancements to the highlands and islands. I have travelled from Campbeltown to Glasgow on several occasions—that model could be repeated in many parts of Wales. In Northern Ireland, the White Paper focuses on the international and city airports of Belfast, but also on more regional airports in terms of linking and working with the Irish Republic Government.
	In Wales, the White Paper correctly concentrates on the south-east in the shape of Cardiff International airport. Cardiff is a vibrant European city—one of the fastest-growing cities in Europe—and it needs that attention. However, it is important to acknowledge the importance of an intra-Wales air service that links the north and the south of the country. The White Paper notes that Wales relies a great deal on English airports. Although it is true that Manchester and Liverpool serve a great proportion of north Wales, Birmingham serves the middle of Wales, and many people travel to Bristol from the south. So there is a standard London-centric view that all Welsh roads and rails lead to England. In fact, the nearest international airport for my constituents is in Dublin, which is some two hours away by fast ferry.
	The advent of devolution offers new transport opportunities for the people of Wales. I welcome the co-operation that has already taken place between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government. Co-operation on transport matters is important in planning integrated systems and dealing with the reserve and devolved matters that lie in Cardiff and London. Last night, there was a debate in the Procedure Committee on the draft Welsh transport Bill, which is an experiment whereby the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs will work with the National Assembly to achieve a properly integrated system.
	The White Paper has allowed the Welsh Assembly Government to work out a network of intra-Wales air services linking north and south Wales, thereby reducing road journeys. Anyone who travels down the A470 or takes the rail journey from north to south Wales—as I am sure that you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—has to go via England, and the journey takes four to five hours. The Welsh Labour party included the new air link in its manifesto for the Welsh Assembly and is now committed to developing it. I am pleased that the White Paper gives close attention to that idea.
	North-west Wales has suffered economically as a result of being on the periphery both of Wales and of the United Kingdom. Many potential investors have cited travel as a barrier to relocating to the area or setting up businesses there. A regional airport would help to remove that barrier, enhancing the railway and the links between my constituency's principal port of Holyhead, which could in future cater for large cruise vessels.
	Since the White Paper was published, I have worked with the business community, the unions, the RAF, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and the county council to put forward a plan to make RAF Valley in my constituency the principal north Wales airport. As it already has the infrastructure in place, that would very much reduce any environmental damage caused by building new runways. It is used to noise, because it is the main RAF Hawk training school, and it is close to the A55 Euro-route, the main line and the sea port, with the potential for offshore gas and oil installations.
	The RAF has been very supportive and I led a delegation to the Ministry of Defence. That shows that we have genuine joined-up government on transport issues. Consultants are working on a business plan with the Welsh Assembly Government. The north-south link from north Wales to Cardiff has the potential to provide another link to Dublin, thereby connecting two vibrant European capitals. The Welsh Assembly recently debated intra-Wales services and was supportive in principle. I want to put it on the record that RAF Valley is the top candidate for such a service. The catchment area is wide and some 200 public sector workers travel along the route from north to south every day. If only a third of them were encouraged to use a new air service, they would provide the core for the future.
	There are working models. I have already mentioned Campbeltown to Glasgow and there is also the service between Newquay St. Mawgan's airport to Stansted. Three quarters of it is full through the new demand for tourism and windsurfing. I hope that the public service obligation matter can be sorted out and that route development will shortly be established. Airbus in north Wales has provided the air industry with a great structure and I want north-west Wales to be part of that.
	Irish success shows that regional airports work and have spread economic prosperity throughout the Republic. I want that to happen throughout the United Kingdom. I want Wales to be an integral part of that and my constituency to benefit.

David Wilshire: My starting point is the wish for Heathrow to continue to flourish. Some 26 per cent. of my constituents in work depend on it for their jobs; many of my elderly constituents derive their pensions from it; many of my local businesses owe their profit to it; many national and international firms choose to be in my constituency because of the airport; and local house prices are high because Heathrow is successful. I therefore make no apology for approaching the debate with the best for my constituents at the forefront of my mind.
	There are two questions. What would happen to Spelthorne's economy if all new runways went elsewhere? What would happen to Spelthorne's environment if Heathrow got one of the runways? The answers lead in different directions and the challenge that faces my constituents is how to strike a sensible balance between those considerations.
	Early public debate was led by environmental campaigners. Much of it was based on exaggerated claims, a few of which we heard again this afternoon. As the Minister said, most of it was knee-jerk. However, I am ready to admit that if the worst predictions of the anti-Heathrow campaigners are true, the price to be paid for a new runway would be too high.
	I therefore welcome the research that is being undertaken and the commitment of BAA and the airlines to do their best to solve those problems. Until the research has been completed, we need to keep our minds open. In the meantime, it makes sense for BAA to start its planning and I welcome its open and honest dialogue with my constituents. However, the chances are that the final decision will flow from a planning application. Please God we do not have a rerun of the stupidity, waste and delay of the terminal 5 inquiry. It has been incredibly difficult to persuade those with strong views about Heathrow to consider the possible economic consequences of its not getting another runway. They could be catastrophic for the airport and for local business and jobs.
	To keep its place as Europe's No. 1 hub airport, Heathrow needs to stay ahead of the competition. No airline wants to leave Heathrow for Stansted or Gatwick. Indeed, airlines are queueing up to get in. If they are to go elsewhere, we must have new traffic distribution rules to force them to move. If forced to move, some airlines would move most or all their operations elsewhere and some would probably move to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris rather than to Stansted or Gatwick.
	If that were to happen, and without another runway, Heathrow would, at best, decline and, at worst, close. No other airport in the world has two neighbouring, flourishing hub airports.
	I realise that some people consider me to be alarmist when I claim that Heathrow is under threat. They tell me that it is bound to survive, whatever happens. My response is to invite them to join me at my favourite Thai restaurant overlooking the Pool of London—a port that many said would survive, whatever happened—and if they can spot a docker while having lunch, I will pay for the meal. If they cannot, they pay. To date, no one has taken me up on that offer.
	There are others who accuse me of wanting to help the airlines only to help their shareholders. That is utter rubbish. Trade unions are not noted for putting shareholders first, yet they accept the economic case for another runway, as do the local and regional chambers of commerce. In addition, national and international businesses say that a flourishing Heathrow is absolutely essential to the success of UK plc. But however worthy these supporters of the economic case are, the opinions that I respect most are those of my constituents. The majority of those whom I was elected to represent do not support the anti-Heathrow campaigners who keep claiming to speak on their behalf. I shall give the House an example. I recently came across a press release on the proposed new runway issued by one of my local councils, which stated:
	"We will continue to support our residents in resisting these developments".
	When challenged, the council's chief executive told me:
	"I can confirm that we have not carried out any recent opinion research on the third runway proposal."
	Well, I have.
	Since the White Paper was published, I have distributed to my constituents more than 40,000 questionnaires that include at least one question about the possible new runway. The results in 2002–03 showed that between 50 and 55 per cent. of them were in favour of the runway, and that 40 to 46 per cent. were against it. After the period of reflection that the Minister mentioned earlier, two recent large surveys have suggested that support for the runway in 2004 is higher. They reveal 63 and 66 per cent. in favour, and 43 and 28 per cent. against. That might come as a surprise to those who knock Heathrow, but it does not surprise me. That is because my constituents want not only to live in a pleasant environment, but to keep their jobs. They want to support their families, pay their mortgages and protect the value of their homes.

Patrick McLoughlin: In the surveys that my hon. Friend carried out, was there a way for people to express the view that they were more interested in seeing a decision being taken, so that the uncertainty could come to an end?

David Wilshire: My guess is that that is absolutely true. By the end of the farce known as the terminal 5 inquiry, even those among my constituents who were against the proposal were almost on their knees begging for somebody to take a decision, to put them out of their misery. That was the stupidity of the matter, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.
	I started by saying that I was going to speak up for my constituents. Before I finish, there is one other group of people for whom I want to speak up: air travellers. I understand the anxieties of the environmental campaigners, but I see no need to apologise for supporting cheap and easy access to air travel for as many people as possible. I do not believe that air travel should be the prerogative of the better-off who can afford to pay the extra tax and duty being called for by the people such as the Liberal Democrats.
	I am glad that we are having this debate and I am pleased that the Minister said earlier that he was keen to hear what my constituents thought after a year of thoughtful reflection, even if he does not like the ties that their MP wears when he comes to the House to tell him about it. I would add in passing that the choice of some of my ties is down to the Minister goading me all the time to go out and buy more. He is therefore to blame for them, not me.
	In Spelthorne—this is the message that I want the Minister to take away with him—a huge majority of my constituents want Heathrow to flourish. A smaller but growing majority accept that that will probably mean another runway, provided—it is a big "provided"—that the real environmental problems can be overcome.

David Taylor: First, may I apologise to the Minister and the House for not being present for the whole debate, despite having put my name down to speak? I was at the funeral of my friend Jim Marshall, the former Member for Leicester, South, who was a magnificent ambassador for his adopted city, an effective voice for the dispossessed in that city, and a powerful champion for the friendless in all parts of the country. I felt that that was a priority.
	To the north of the North-West Leicestershire constituency lies East Midlands airport or, as we must now not call it, Nottingham East Midlands airport, a former local authority initiative and enterprise, owned jointly by Derby city and county councils, Nottingham city and county councils, and Leicestershire county council, in shares of ninths. At the point at which its expansion was halted because of difficulty of access to capital, it was sold to National Express.
	Prior to that sale, the population in the vicinity at least had access to elected members, who indirectly operated the airport, who were able to respond to the concerns that they might have from time to time. The key concern then and during the ownership of National Express—it remains so under the more recent ownership of Manchester Airports Group—was night noise, which is linked predominantly to freight flights. A history of difficulty has worsened over the years. I can only agree—unusually, perhaps—with my county colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), in urging the Minister to look for designation under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as an appropriate way ahead.
	When the Secretary of State for Transport launched the White Paper, there were frequent references in that speech, and since, to stringent controls on noise and particularly on night flights—an elusive phrase. The detail on that is lacking. I hope that the Minister, in summing up today, or in the months that follow, will direct the efforts and energies of his experts and civil servants to putting some flesh on the bones in relation to what is meant by stringent night noise controls. Designation has something to offer in that regard.
	My other county colleague, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), talked about community involvement, although he did not use that phrase, and the fact that when new directions and flight paths were introduced, those populations who were affected had hardly been consulted and had received very little information. That is all of a piece with what has happened in recent times, sadly, under the ownership of the Manchester Airport Group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) has said, one would hope that the 10 local authorities would be more sensitive to community concerns. Their very raison d'être is to listen and respond to the communities for whom they are responsible. Their normal way of working is to respond to the concerns that are raised, but that is not happening. I know that my hon. Friend chairs the relevant parliamentary group, and I hope that he will use his influence to get Manchester to listen much more closely to the communities that lie around East Midlands airport.
	Night flights are the problem. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has pointed out that within his lifetime, as he is a relatively young man, but perhaps not within mine, we shall see something like 60,000 freight flights a year—200 a night—within what is an almost unrestricted environmental framework.
	That is the problem. Under local authority ownership, rigorous control of the pattern of usage and the timing of flights was, perhaps, not considered a high priority, since local authorities could respond to concerns that emerged. We now have the largest dedicated freight airport in the country working with almost no control framework.
	We have heard a bit about low-cost airlines. The White Paper sets out growth for the industry to 2030, and much of it is allocated to the low-cost sector. About 36 million passengers fly with the likes of Ryanair and easyJet, to name but two who, when this speech started, were still in business. The Government foresee about 103 million people flying with low-cost airlines by 2030. I am pleased to see the Minister back in his place, and I ask him whether he really thinks expansion is likely to continue at that rate. In his in-tray, filled by appropriate civil servants this week, he will find the authoritative industry magazine Flight International, which has a clear article analysing the battle in the skies between low-cost carriers and charter companies. In essence, the charter holiday market is being hit very hard by low-cost operators. One can only agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about some of the lunacies of the low-cost market, which can function only because of the special low-taxation status that the aviation industry has learned to enjoy in recent years.
	Will the Minister discuss with the Secretary of State the Department for Transport's and the Civil Aviation Authority's route licensing policy, which currently seems not to take environmental considerations into account, such as the extra impact of noise and road traffic around East Midlands airport, caused by air wars that mean airports vying to outdo each other in how much subsidy they give to airlines? Can the Department take more effective action in that regard?
	I travelled today to Leicester and back through St. Pancras station, where the huge investment into high-speed rail to our continental near neighbours is clear. Will the Minister use the DFT-CAA route licensing system to discourage air routes to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam, and to divert that traffic to the effective intercontinental rail system that is being built in north London and the area around it? It would be economic and environmental lunacy not to ensure that the new framework was used to greatest effect, discouraging some of the hugely environmentally damaging and unnecessary short-haul flights to certain European capitals.

John Barrett: I have a direct interest in the debate and the Government's policies on aviation. The White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport", contains extensive plans for the development and expansion of Edinburgh airport, which is in my constituency. The plans come on top of existing, ongoing developments, such as the extension to the taxiway, a project that is well under way. I have watched the airport grow over the past 30 years from a small regional airport into a major international link.
	Even if I did not have that specific constituency connection, however, I should, as someone concerned about the environment, be keeping a close eye on the words and actions of the Minister. It is clear from the debate, and the debate going on outside this place throughout the country, that I am not alone. As a number of Members have said, the debate, the White Paper and the issue are very important. They have an impact on business and communities the length and breadth of the country.
	Four months ago I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, and I shall not repeat what I said in February. One very important addition to the discussion on air transport since then, however, has been the publication of the report by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit.
	That report has to be one of the most critical that I have read. It is not the longest report produced, but it presents a serious case for the Government to answer. For that cross-party group to provide such criticism in a parliamentary report only confirms what many of us had feared: that the Government have no idea of what they mean by sustainable development. In a spirit of helpfulness to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), I suggest this definition of sustainable development: development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Is there anything wrong with that definition?
	The question now is what can and should be done to mitigate the considerable impact that an expansion in air travel will undoubtedly have. Whether we listen to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Institute for Public Policy Research or the House's own Environmental Audit Committee, there is wide consensus that the White Paper, if implemented, will run every risk of wiping out all the Government's progress on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and could undermine their entire climate change strategy. It is important not to forget the nitrogen oxide and water vapour pollution produced by air transport, emissions that make a considerable additional contribution to global warming. The White Paper makes no mention whatever of those.
	The Government have, of course, consulted extensively on the fiscal measures that can be exploited to ensure that aviation pays for the damage that it causes, yet for all the consultation there seems to be precious little progress. The Government have, to all intents and purposes, put all their eggs in the emissions trading basket. They must look again at the issue of aviation fuel taxation, because there are without question enormous disparities between how we tax different modes of transport. It seems that the air transport sector is getting off pretty lightly at present, a situation that is simply not sustainable in a sustainable aviation policy.

John Wilkinson: Before the hon. Gentleman waxes even more eloquently in favour of the Liberal Democrat policy to put further taxation on aviation, will he tell us his view of the White Paper proposal to safeguard land at Edinburgh airport for the possible construction of a second, parallel runway?

John Barrett: It makes sense to protect the land, but no decision needs to be taken yet. There might be no requirement for a second runway—a subject that I shall come to later.
	One of the most disappointing aspects of the White Paper is how little it says on air-rail substitution. I find it extraordinary that a Government who espouse the importance of an integrated transport policy seem to view air transport policies as separate—almost in isolation—from other modes of transport. The fact is that short-haul flights, which make up an enormous amount of the traffic arriving at and departing from Edinburgh airport, are the most polluting. By providing good, reliable, affordable high-speed rail links between north and south, we would create an alternative, much more environmentally friendly, way of connecting Scotland with London and the south of England. Approximately 50 per cent. of all flights into and out of Edinburgh are to and from cities in the UK that could be reached by rail. Back in February, the Commission for Integrated Transport produced a thorough report on that very issue. As the Secretary of State and the Minister will know, it argued that Edinburgh to London journey times could be cut to as little as two and a half hours. At present, it takes much longer to get from the centre of Edinburgh to the centre of London, a journey that I do every week by four separate modes of transport.
	As I have said, about two thirds of flights arriving at Edinburgh airport come from other UK airports accessible by rail. Just think of the pollution that could be prevented if the passengers on those flights were transported by rail instead of air. Yet, for such a long White Paper, relatively little is said on the importance of investment in the development of rail routes. That is yet another example of this Government's mistaken priorities.
	The Minister will know that, without question, the most controversial parts of the White Paper from an Edinburgh perspective are the statements surrounding the second runway.
	The debate rages about the degree to which projected capacity can be accommodated at Edinburgh by the one existing runway. Surely such a question would not even arise if the short-haul flights that take up so many of the existing slots were redundant because of high-speed rail. High-speed rail would also help to free up airport capacity for the direct international flights that so many of us in Edinburgh want to see expanded, and it would be good for local tourism and for business.
	The current construction of the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters next to the airport will create 3,000 new jobs in the constituency. But given the location of a major airport in my constituency, and coming as I do from a city that is heavily dependent on tourism, I recognise the importance of air transport to Edinburgh and to the wider Scottish economy. The airport acts as a gateway to Scotland. It employs thousands of people directly and indirectly, it is increasingly providing my constituents with a greater choice of direct international holiday destinations, and it offers a greater number of potential foreign visitors a direct link to Edinburgh and Scotland. In the past year alone, new direct flights have been established to Prague, Moscow and New York.
	These developments are to be welcomed. I am not against all expansion of air transport, but I am not in favour of uncontrolled expansion, which is almost what the Government are proposing. It is vital to get the balance right. A balance must be struck between economic interests and the environment, and it is clear to me and to many of my constituents that the Government have a long way to go before that balance will be struck.

Tony McNulty: With the leave of the House, I shall bring this extremely interesting debate to a conclusion. I want to start by associating myself fully with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said about our friend, Jim Marshall, the former Member for Leicester, South. He will certainly be missed.
	The contribution of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is a timely and useful place to end our deliberations. There have been some extraordinarily useful and thoughtful contributions, but he was the first to argue that, as I understood it, he wants a runway but does not want it. He wants to tax aviation far further, but he wants to welcome tourists to Edinburgh. He wants significant investment in even more high-speed rail links—without recognising the investment that has been made thus far—but he wants tourism in Edinburgh to flourish. That sums up the Liberal Democrats, a point to which I shall perhaps return shortly.

John Barrett: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Given that I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, of course I will.

John Barrett: Will the Minister complete his summary by saying whether he agreed with my definition of sustainability?

Tony McNulty: If that was the best definition of sustainability that the hon. Gentleman could come up with, we had best leave the matter there. [Interruption.] It was not a broad definition of sustainable aviation in the context of the White Paper, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) was seeking.
	This has been a very useful debate and, as I said, Members on both sides of the House have made thoughtful contributions. Some contributions rightly focused on national policy, and others focused on economic and environmental issues, as is equally right and proper. Yet others rightly focused on local issues and raised specific concerns about local airports. I shall try to deal with as many of the contributions as I can.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) struggled to find fault with the White Paper. Reference was made to fudges and a lack of joined-up government, and there were some frilly bits around the edges, but his heart really was not in it. I am extraordinarily grateful to him for repeating a speech that he made to the aviation club on 1 April, which I missed. It is quite useful to have the advantage of simply reading out a speech, which one often does for the benefit of one's own colleagues. It was not a bad little speech and I am grateful to him for sticking to it; consistency is surely to be admired. However, its bare substance showed that he found little to disagree with in terms of the White Paper's thrust. Indeed, not many Members found much to disagree with, save for their concerns about their local airports, which I fully recognise.
	Like other assorted panaceas offered in a simplistic fashion during the day, rail substitution has been mentioned, but it is not necessarily the full answer, and the notion that the Government have no policy on rail at all belies the experience of the last couple of years. That will be made more than clear by the time we get to the rail review.
	The notion that, simply because there has been significant investment over the years in high-speed rail in France—whereas there has not been in this country—there are suddenly no short-haul domestic flights is absolute nonsense. The best part of 250 domestic flights are made in France every single day. The notion that, if there is more high-speed rail and more encouragement for people to operate on rail, lo and behold, they do and there is no longer a need for shorter-haul domestic flights is simplistic nonsense, which does not add any substance to the debate.
	As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will know, about 93 per cent. of business trips from Scotland to the south-east are by air. I suspect that, whatever happens to the west coast and east coast main line, that will still prevail. I glory in the fact that that is partly why there is such substantial investment throughout the curtilage of Edinburgh airport. That is why—it is not because of rail links.

David Taylor: I am disappointed that the Minister uses the old debating tactic of summarising what people have said in a wholly inaccurate way and then knocking the argument down. No one has suggested that substitution to fast rail services would remove the need for internal flights. We are talking about containing growth and securing the best benefit from the welcome investment that the Government have made in the St. Pancras to Ebbsfleet line and elsewhere. Could the Minister please be a little more accurate in his summing-up speech?

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend would have been better served—I know the reasons why he was not—had he been in his place for the whole day and listened to the whole debate and the whole of the rail substitution arguments advanced today, rather than just part of them. With the best will in the world, I understand why he was not—I said that at the outset and I respect that—but to enter the debate belatedly and to make comments about the course of the whole debate is not entirely fair on my hon. Friend's part. I say no more than that.
	It is the same when we come on to taxation. Saying that we should scrap air departure taxes paid by passengers and that it would be much fairer if airlines paid a duty on every plane—passenger or freight—taking off from a British airport, as though that were a new way forward that would solve all our environmental problems, is again short-sighted nonsense. The proposal to tax the aeroplane and not the passenger is based on the principle of the polluter paying, but that is not the case. It does not take a genius to work out that those charges would immediately be passed on to business, commercial and personal flights. It will not be the polluter that pays.
	That idea is simplistic and crude, at best. It does nothing about providing incentives to cut back on emissions, as we are proposing, either in respect of landing charges or the EU emissions trading scheme. It does nothing to incentivise people to reduce noise through noise charges or to bring about compensation and mitigation measures, which already apply to freight rather than passenger flights. It makes no allowance for discerning qualitative differences between aircraft—both this and the last Government have recognised the importance of that—and it takes no account of the economics of an industry that already creates incentives to obtain high load factors. Of itself, the idea is crude and it is not necessarily a panacea, which is the usual context in which it is offered. It comes from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). It does not go far enough and it is in no way a substantive contribution to the debate: it is entirely knee-jerk.
	The comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and others, including the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, on the EAC's report are entirely right. It is one of the most critical reports ever made of the Government, but it is equally, as I said earlier this morning, one of the most flawed reports that a Committee has ever produced. The EAC persists in comparing aviation total climate change impacts with CO 2 -only impacts of other non-aviation sources. The figures are simply wrong. We have made the offer in substance, and I repeat it now, to sit down with members of the Committee and anyone else and go through the figures in detail.
	The EAC report is manifestly wrong. It does not acknowledge that figures for international aviation emissions include all emissions from flights departing from the UK, even though the Kyoto protocol does not allocate those emissions to states. I suspect that that will be news to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
	The UK is the only country in the world to produce figures that allocate international aviation emissions in this way. There is much noise about Kyoto and the attempt to sort out emissions, but the White Paper's provisions, if they came to fruition—

Paul Marsden: That is a big if.

Tony McNulty: Of course it is, but would the hon. Gentleman prefer us to do nothing? The White Paper's proposals, if they came to fruition, would go way beyond Kyoto. They include emissions that are not mentioned in Kyoto, and in an environmentally managed system. That must be good for everyone.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Of course, given that I am talking about the hon. Gentleman's Committee's report.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister is being more than usually patronising. He is also incorrect in his analysis of the EAC report, with which he disagrees. He knows that we have calculated—using the Government's own numbers and forecasts, and the policies announced in the White Paper—that aviation will account for about 70 per cent. of all UK CO2 emissions by 2050. We discussed this matter on the radio this morning, but he did not explain then why the Department has assumed that there will be no decrease at all in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for the next 50 years. Will he explain it now?

Tony McNulty: I did deal with that this morning. I said that those figures were simply modelling constants that statisticians tell me are factored in, in a standard way, to provide a description of prevailing conditions in 2030 and 2050. However, I repeat that the EAC report compares apples and pears—that is, two distinct sets of figures.
	We have dealt with the national and regional dimensions of this matter, but the international dimension is also important. The EAC report quotes selectively from the Johannesburg declaration, which makes it clear that sustainability involves a range of economic, social and environmental measures. The declaration rightly deals also with the need for efficient and affordable transportation and access to markets. It recommends that transboundary pollution should be dealt with through international consensus and not unilateral action.
	How can we penalise smaller third-world and developing countries that want to grow by imposing on their aviation systems the standards that prevail in the developed world? The question has arisen before, and the answer is that a balanced approach is required.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I will, as long as the hon. Gentleman answers one key question to do with his report. He exhorts the Government to deal with "unnecessary" air transport. I should be grateful for a short definition of what "unnecessary" air transport might be, and how it might be policed.

Peter Ainsworth: It is for the Government to respond to our report, not for me to respond to the Minister. He will know that the Government signed up to a sustainable consumption policy as part of the Johannesburg commitments. How does he square that policy with the fact that air traffic is to treble over the next 50 years?

Tony McNulty: Again, the hon. Gentleman selectively quotes the Johannesburg declaration. I agree that the declaration talks about sustainable consumption, but it also talks about efficient and affordable transportation, access to markets, and about dealing with transboundary pollution by international consensus as opposed to unilateral action. The Johannesburg declaration dealt with all those elements, which are all very important when it comes aviation's international role, especially in respect of developing countries. It is not sufficient to focus on one line of the declaration.
	The EAC report contains no suggestion as to what "unnecessary" air transport might be, but I forgive the hon. Gentleman for that. I am sure that "Is Your Journey Really Necessary?" posters will be put up at all airports. The suggestion in the report was ridiculous, and remains so.

David Taylor: I sense that the Minister is about to leave the topic of emissions trading, so will he confirm that there will be a stringent cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme? Will he assure the House that that cap will be progressively lowered, that the process will be transparent and that alleged reductions will be independently verified?

Tony McNulty: If my hon. Friend reads the ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organisation—report on emissions trading, which was partly funded by the Government, although the Committee suggested that it does not exist, he will see that the mechanisms involved are discussed. That work has been repeated by both OXERA and DG ENV. Appendix B of the White Paper contains some of the early work on a possible emissions trading scheme for the European Union. I cannot confirm that the system he has just described will be the one that prevails but it sounds not dissimilar to a system that I would intuitively be happy to accept.
	Someone said earlier that there was little support for an emissions trading scheme in the EU, but they were profoundly and utterly wrong. The support in the EU for a trading scheme grows by the day and the month. I freely admit that there is some resistance to the scheme, which is why we want to get some impetus behind an EU scheme at the ICAO level—not least from some of the larger member countries. It is no accident that the larger members of ICAO who are resistant to such a scheme are not unlinked to those who have yet to sign up to Kyoto, let alone ratify it.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) will have to forgive me, but I shall not discuss Stansted when we do not even know whether the legal challenge permitted by the High Court will be successful.

Mark Prisk: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt attempt to draw me further on that issue, and I can assure him that if he does, I will not reply.

Mark Prisk: I would not want to upset the Minister, who is naturally very sensitive, by trying to lead him in that direction. However, the issue of cross-subsidies is not related to the legal case and I specifically asked what would happen in that area, given the changing competitive environment.

Tony McNulty: The sensitivity relates to the legal dimensions that I must respect as a Minister. On the issue of cross-subsidies, I say simply, as I have said before, that the day after the White Paper was published, Sir Roy McNulty—no relation—said that the CAA, as the regulatory body, had no plans to change the system that prevails, and the Government have not demurred from that statement.
	Some hon. Friends asked about the master plan in detail and when the guidance would be published. I will seek to ensure that the guidance for the master plan is published before the summer recess.

Kelvin Hopkins: I made a specific point about the time scale for the delivery of the master plan, because I know that London-Luton airport is concerned about that. We do not want to rush it, because we want to get it right.

Tony McNulty: That is why we will insist, as someone else mentioned, that all airports with traffic movements above a certain level should submit at least an interim master plan by the end of this year. We will then discuss the approach to a finalised master plan, and that will be in the guidance when it is published. I understand the concerns. Whether one supports the master plan or not, clarity is important.

John McDonnell: I raised the issue of interim master plans. It would be helpful if the guidance clarified the relationship between the master plan and other planning guidance or mechanisms, and what impact the master plan will have on those.

Tony McNulty: The master plan will not be a statutory planning document. It will not be part of the package of development documents that will prevail under the new system. Nor will it be statutory planning guidance under the existing system. However, it will clearly be a material planning matter.
	What is in the master plan will need to be duly considered in subsequent planning processes. For those hon. Members who do not know, a material planning matter is an item that does not have statutory force, but must be taken into account in any subsequent planning inquiry.

John McDonnell: I am sorry to persist on this point, but is it therefore open to people other than the airport operator to develop the master plan for any airport site?

Tony McNulty: In one sense, strictly speaking under the law, yes, of course it is, in the same sense as I am entirely free to submit a master plan and a planning application for the house owned by the hon. Member for Ashford, although I have no desire to do so. People are allowed to submit such plans, but they would not have the same force rooted in the requirement for the master plan in the White Paper, so such plans sit between statutory documents and material planning matters.
	The White Paper makes clear the importance of clear guidance on considering the public service obligations and route development funds, and we are considering those details at the moment. We will issue draft guidelines for consultation shortly. Some regions have made considerable progress in respect of RDFs—not least Northern Ireland, where quite significant route development support seems to have been developed during the past couple of months, which is encouraging. Taken together, RDFs and the public service obligations—my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned them in relation to the periphery—will seek to protect both the viability and the development of regional airports, as well as the crucial interconnectivity to London.
	I am grateful to those hon. Members—clearly, not everyone—who suggested that this is not about predict and provide. It simply is not about that. I can be certainly nowhere near as eloquent in that regard as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Clearly, to use predict and provide as a charge against the White Paper is nonsense. If predict and provide were used and things were determined purely on economic and demand-led criteria, there would already be a rush to build a third runway at Heathrow, at least a second at Stansted and certainly a second at Gatwick, without real discussion. If just economic criteria drove the final policy decisions, the White Paper would take a very different shape.
	I half take the point about the notion of drift. The master plan process does not equal drift; it starts to provide at least some direction. I take the point made by my hon. Friends and others, including the hon. Member for Ashford, that some serious and far-reaching decisions need to be made, at least in some regards, during the forthcoming Thursday and Friday meeting of the Transport Council, including on the EU-US talks, flight-time limitations, training and other issues. We will report the outcome of those discussions to the House in due course.

John Wilkinson: The slot system currently operated in the UK has worked well, by and large. Airport committees have reached consensus agreements in the end, after much haggling and bargaining, thus ensuring grandfather rights and the right of new entrants to fly services into those airports. Will the EU take over total power to allocate slots in the EU? Is that the EU's objective? Would Her Majesty's Government accede to such an idea?

Tony McNulty: I will certainly not speculate about what may or may not be the objective of the Commission or anyone else in the EU. We have said before that we want a slot allocation system that encourages the more effective use of scarce capacity, and we are considering in some detail the report that came from the Commission in January. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of that report may differ from the Government's, but we are considering it in some detail, and I am sure that that will help to inform the UK's negotiating position. As has been said, we start from the premise of recognising Heathrow's importance not just to London and the south-east, but to the whole economy.
	I think that I have had three full meetings with hon. Members to discuss Nottingham East Midlands airport, and at least one with the Manchester Airport Group at which I conveyed local MPs' concerns in respect of night noise and plans for the airport. Provided that the largest group possible is involved, not little groupuscles, I am more than happy to meet all the MPs involved again to try to build a bridge of trust between local MPs and Manchester Airport Group and to introduce a little clarity into the process.

Alan Duncan: At the risk of being seen as someone who is even smaller than a little groupuscle, may I ask the Minister to consider whether in our planning procedures there is not quite a gap between extreme regulation and no regulation? Does he not think that the White Paper offers scope to reconsider the guidelines and procedures that govern a change of such magnitude, which is currently totally unregulated?

Tony McNulty: There might be something in what the hon. Gentleman says. At present, all we have is informal local agreements, or planning inquiries at which all matters can be revisited, or designation, which, as he implied, is the nuclear option. Perhaps there is scope to look at that matter. However, within current parameters, I am more than happy to meet the group of MPs concerned about Nottingham East Midlands airport to see whether we can make progress. As I said, I have raised the matter with Manchester Airport Group, so it is aware of my concerns and everyone else's.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to the Minister for that offer. I am sure that many MPs present today, especially those from Leicestershire, will take him up on it. I accept his comments about the choice being between the nuclear option and no restrictions whatever, but I hope that he will discuss the term "stringent noise controls". We shall be happy to work with him to achieve a clear definition of such controls. Perhaps some form of regulation based on that will offer a way forward in which we can all work together.

Tony McNulty: We can discuss that when we meet. The White Paper says that, among other things, we shall consider legislating in that respect. However, when we meet, I do not want to discuss recent history and opportunities missed to get more rigour in the control relationship between the airport and the locality. I could go on about that now for another 20 minutes, but I shall not.
	Any change to Heathrow's 480,000 air traffic movements limit would require planning permission. It would be for BAA to make a planning application, which would be considered through the normal planning process. There are rumours and speculation about night flights. I want to ensure that the first consultation in that respect takes place before the summer recess, so that we can at least get started.
	Mixed mode has to be considered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) said, it would require the cessation of long-standing arrangements, such as the Cranford agreement and runway alternation agreements. We are at a very early stage of consideration and, despite what the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested, there is no on-off switch—it is not a simple alternative. There are huge technical, environmental and other issues to take into account. As we said in the White Paper, between now and the taking of a decision on a third runway, it is incumbent on us to examine optimisation of capacity at Heathrow, as we are doing at all other airports through the master planning process. Revisiting mixed mode is part of that process, but I assure the House that we have an open mind. There are no secret deals and no hidden theories—incidentally, it is the latter that are daft, not the individuals concerned, as I made clear in my opening speech. However, I shall be very surprised if we have anything on which to consult the public before early 2006.

David Wilshire: In my 17 years as an MP I have been trying to find a copy of the Cranford agreement. Does the Minister have one?

Tony McNulty: I have lots of paper about my person, but not a copy of the Cranford agreement. It is not an illuminated manuscript kept under glass in the Department, but if I find it, I will certainly give it to the hon. Gentleman.
	It is important to keep an open mind on the mixed mode option, and the technicalities mean that we will consider it later rather than sooner. The first phase of consultation on night flight guidance, however, will be issued in summer. These are serious matters, and the publication of the White Paper is far from the end of the process. Huge work streams at a national, international, regional and local levels spring from the document. Different progress has been made on each one depending on the position of each airport. I repeat that we are determined to get the balance right between, on the one hand, the significant economic contribution that aviation makes throughout the country, the importance of airports as key economic drivers, access and links to London and, on the other, as everyone would agree to some extent, a genuine concern with environmental issues, including emissions, CO 2 , noise and the impact of airports on the locality, about which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton spoke. Environmental considerations are extremely important, but they are not served, to conclude on a happily discordant note, by simplistic panaceas offered up to satisfy the green lobby and make everyone feel good. In fact, they achieve nothing and, paradoxically, do not serve the environmental cause. Simplicity is not in anyone's interest in public policy, whatever side of the fence one sits on. I thank hon. Members for their contributions in the main, and I am sure that we will have another debate on the White Paper, which deserves more than only seven or eight hours of debate. I look forward to everyone being here next time.

Francis Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that this is difficult matter for you and other occupants of the Chair to manage, but this is an important debate, both nationally and for many of us with specific constituency matters. The Minister spoke for 40 minutes in his opening speech—I am not criticising him, as he was subject to frequent interventions—and 30 minutes in his winding-up speech. I believe that there are 22 minutes left for debate, yet Back Benchers were subject to a severe eight-minute limit on speeches—a discipline that I was perfectly happy to accept, but the debate was unduly skewed away from Back Benchers, and that might have been avoided.

Mr. Speaker: There are two ways of looking at it. If there had been no time limit, a Back Bencher might have taken 20 or 30 minutes, and put other Back Benchers at a disadvantage. I think that I did the right thing by imposing a time limit—I do not have a crystal ball and do not know what is going to happen. In the Minister's defence—I do not often defend Ministers except this one—on such a subject hon. Members tend to intervene on Ministers to make a point. I believe that everyone in the Chamber has been able to make a contribution, which makes me very happy indeed.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 15th June,
	(a) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) and the limits on half-days in paragraph (2)(b) of that Order, proceedings on a Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, or until Four o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and
	(b) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to New Financial Perspective and EU regional policy not later than Seven o'clock, or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Vernon Coaker.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Post Office Closure

Tony Colman: I present a petition signed by my constituents opposed to the closure of the post office located in a successful retail outlet at 2A Montford place, Princes way, Southfields. The closure is opposed not only by me and my constituents, but by Wandsworth council, and is being strongly queried by Postwatch.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of residents of Southfields in the constituency of Putney,
	Declares that the Post Office has proposed the closure of the post office in Princes Way in Southfields; protests that this closure will have a detrimental impact on the local community, especially the elderly, less mobile and disabled and parents with young children; notes the hilly nature of the terrain in which that post office is situated and that there is not another post office within easy walking distance and deplores the farcical so-called consultation process initiated by the Post Office in which the general public's and other stakeholders' views are contemptuously set aside.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge on H M Government to exercise their shareholders' rights to direct the Post Office to withdraw this closure proposal.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]

David Heath: I understand that today we witnessed an astronomical phenomenon, the transit of Venus, which occurs very infrequently. From my research, debates on the role of educational psychologists appear to be equally infrequent. Not only is it remiss of the House not to consider an important profession, but it is odd, given that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House frequently have cause to look into the work of educational psychologists because of casework emerging from our surgeries. We are often approached by parents who have children with special educational needs, and we often make pleas on their behalf for the support that the parents would like their children to receive.
	Educational psychologists are a crucial part of much of the Government's thinking, as I understand it, in terms of multi-agency work and some of the inclusion work that is clearly laid out in the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and much of the ongoing work of the Department for Education and Skills. We are speaking of a small but important profession and the work that it does.
	I express my thanks to my friend Dr. Sandra Dunsmuir, who first approached me on the subject, and her colleague from University college, London, Norah Frederickson, and to the Association of Educational Psychologists and the British Psychological Society, both of which were helpful in providing me with information in support of this debate.
	In the time available, I shall touch on three broad matters—first, the supply of educational psychologists within the profession; secondly, their training; and thirdly and briefly, the role that they play. On supply, it is recognised throughout the country that there is a significant problem with the number of entrants to the profession and the number of educational psychologists who are available to local education authorities to do the statutory work and the extended additional work that we would like them to do.
	I had a discussion earlier today with David Webster, the president of the Association of Educational Psychologists and the chief officer for Lancashire county council. He tells me that his authority is typical of many throughout the country in holding three vacancies out of an establishment of 41. In addition, several members of staff are on maternity leave. He cannot fill the vacancies successfully, but without filling the vacancies he cannot begin to ask people to apply for the temporary vacancies that would enable the authority to do some of the non-statutory work that we would all wish it to do.
	Brian Harrison-Jennings, the chief executive of the Association of Educational Psychologists, told me that a major authority in the north of England recently advertised for three senior educational psychologists and received not a single applicant for those three posts, which is surprising, given that one would expect people in the profession to apply for such posts. One's initial reaction might be that it is good for the profession that educational psychologists are fully employed and that those who are qualified can find posts, but I suspect that that is not the case. Local education authorities increasingly face a lack of cover and over-extension and educational psychologists are being forced to perform statutory duties as a priority, simply because that is what LEAs require, and do not have time to do their jobs in a wider sense.
	Those who want to enter the profession face difficulties. A statistic struck me. As the Minister knows, 110 training places are currently available each year for educational psychologists and 482 people applied last year. Those 482 applicants have degrees and are ready to enter the profession, but the required training places are not available. That only 110 places are available is, of course, part of the problem. In December 2003, the Department for Education and Skills commissioned a report—I see the Minister nodding—that identified the need for 150 places a year in order to provide for the sustainable development of the profession.
	The lack of available qualified educational psychologists has an impact on their work. Children often need to wait for assessment and, as I said earlier, many hon. Members know from their advice surgeries how frustrating it can be for parents and children when a child must wait for a long period for an assessment, which prevents the sort of therapeutic intervention that we would like to see at an early stage. Educational psychologists are spending less time with children. For an educational psychologist to see a child for a second time is a luxury, which is not what we want to see in a profession that provides ongoing support. As I said, that places the emphasis on statutory duties rather than on preventive work, on which I know many in the profession would like to concentrate.
	The answer has already been identified, and it is to the credit of the Department for Education and Skills, the professional associations and the employers, through the LEAs and the Local Government Association, that they have been able to come together and identify it. As the Minister knows, the answer, at least in part, is the new model for training educational psychologists. It involves increasing postgraduate professional training for educational psychologists from one year to three years, while removing the obligation for educational psychologists to hold a teaching qualification and two years' teaching experience. The net result is to reduce the overall training period from eight years to six years and to concentrate on experience that is relevant to the actual profession that applicants want to enter, rather than on training in a profession—classroom teacher—that applicants have no desire to enter, valuable though it is.
	That model has a high level of acceptability. In May  2001, the Department for Education and Employment—as it then was—provided a summary of the responses to its consultation.
	Of the 101 responses—the fact that 77 came from local education authorities indicates that a strong view was expressed by the employers as well as the profession—90 per cent. agreed that the new model would meet the training needs of the profession in future and 94 per cent. said that the package would be viable from the perspective of higher education providers and employers. A clear picture is emerging: this is a solution that it is in everyone's interest to implement at an early stage.
	Moving on from that consultation, the Department engaged in discussions on an implementation strategy, and it was believed that it saw the proposal as a high priority. It is right that it should do so. We have to deal with the current shortages, and the fact that everyone is pointing in the same direction at once represents a window of opportunity that should not be missed. Moreover, as the Minister will be aware, in March 2003 the Department of Health introduced a requirement for the statutory regulation of psychologists. That suggests that regulation via the Health Professions Council, which starts in March 2005, would be met by the new arrangements, but not the present ones.
	There is substantial impetus behind the proposal and a generally agreed view that it needs to be put in place at the earliest opportunity. The implementation date was set for September 2005, and that has been the working assumption of those in the profession for some time. There has to be a two-year transition period—one cannot immediately switch on the tap from one training module to the other, because people are already involved in the training process. In the course of that two-year transition, some of the cohorts in training would start at the point of the new three-year postgraduate professional training process, some would be in the middle of the previous process, and some would be at the end of the previous process.
	That means that a transitional cost is involved as well as the ongoing costs of providing such training. It has always been understood that local education authorities, although they are perfectly satisfied with the arrangements and believe that they can sustain the outcome, will always need help from the Government in achieving the transition from one process to the other. There is no reason why that should not be the case. However, a fly in the ointment appeared in the shape of a letter dated 2 March 2004 from the Minister for School Standards to the Association of Educational Psychologists. That letter sent a disturbing signal to the profession. In it, the Minister says:
	"However, it is important that you understand that funding agreed for the Department in the Spending Review will reflect overall Ministerial priorities; there can be no guarantee that funding will be found to enable implementation from 2005."
	That is clearly true. The Minister must have the flexibility to direct priorities within the Department in the coming year, the comprehensive spending review is still under way, and sanction from the Treasury is necessary for the global spend in the Department. Not a single word in the letter is untrue.
	However, it sends a signal that there is uncertainty about implementation. Although I am not sure about the Department's total spend, I suspect that we are not considering a high percentage of it. The letter conveys the message that the Department is unclear about whether it can find the necessary cash—£4.7 million in the first year—for implementation on the expected date. That figure is petty cash for the Department for Education and Skills. Nevertheless, it appears to be in question. The figure for subsequent years is £10.4 million.
	The effect has been not only confusion but some dismay. That applies not only to the profession, but, crucially, to those who are applying for training places. They do not know what they should do—whether to enter teaching training and whether to assume the existence of funding packages. Many educational psychologists who are currently training are self-funded. We could start a debate about the effect of top-up fees and loans, but that would be out of place. However, if people must fund not only their way through university but their professional training, some will consider the subsequent debt and wonder whether it is worth while.
	Many potentially good applicants are asking for advice and the professional associations and the higher education establishment are unable to provide answers simply because of the uncertainty that the Department has engendered. Some applicants are going ahead regardless, some are wondering whether they should take an odd sort of postgraduate gap year and others are simply going away and saying that perhaps they will return when the Department has sorted itself out and they know where they stand. That is not satisfactory, so if the Minister can provide any clarity he will do a great service to the profession and those who need its services in future.
	I want to conclude with a few words about educational psychologists' working practices. I express my opinion purely as a lay person who sees people in my surgery and teachers in schools. There is something desperately wrong with the assessment process. I get the impression that educational psychologists are increasingly finding themselves producing reports, assessments, reports on whether a report should be prepared, reports on whether an assessment should be conducted and so on, instead of dealing directly with the children.
	The statementing process, which was once a protection for the child and the parents, became a protection of a funding stream for the school. Nowadays, schools appear to prefer not to have devolved special educational needs funding budgets because it pre-empts their decision making. They argue that a statement is often unnecessary. It is sometimes an obstacle to children getting the support that they need.
	I understand why parents feel cautious about the matter, because they want a guarantee that their child will get the necessary support. However, if the process of creating the guarantee soaks up the resources that should provide the support, something is wrong. We would all like educational psychologists, who are highly skilled, not to write endless reports but to deal with children, take a more holistic approach to the children in their care, and perhaps work more generally on the design of school teaching and the causes of exclusion in the school environment. They should be allowed to work one to one with a child. They rarely get the chance to do that. They should be able to do more preventive work rather than statutory work and concentrate on some of the schemes that the Government are anxious to promote, such as portage schemes, Sure Start and behaviour improvement projects.
	Most of all, educational psychologists should deal with inclusion. They are a critical factor in creating the circumstances for proper inclusion for children who are disaffected, have specific needs or could do better in their school environment. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that is also the Government's understanding and that they are taking the necessary steps to reassure the profession and enable it to move forward.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coaker.]

David Drew: I shall make just a few guarded remarks. I welcome what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said. He performs an invaluable service in dealing with the Cinderella subjects that are so often ignored.
	I would like to make two observations. Some educational psychologists have written to me to say that they are a wee bit worried about the implications of the changes to their profession. I know that they welcome the additional resources, but I suppose that their starting point would be—as the hon. Gentleman made only too clear—to ask how the training will take effect, what impact it will have on people already in situ, and whether there is any danger of a two-tier service developing. It would be appropriate if my hon. Friend the Minister could allay those fears.
	My other point follows the hon. Gentleman's final remarks about the role of educational psychologists. Traditionally, this service has been directed by and through local education authorities. Now, with devolved budgets, schools are much more able to determine how they want their special educational needs budgets to be allocated. To some extent, that means that there is the potential for conflict in the role of the educational psychologist, in that schools might want to allocate the money for SEN on a more general basis, while parents might wish to identify the particular problems of their children. We have had an active debate on the value of statementing as a means to an end rather than an end in itself, so it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could allay any fears that we could be creating a more complicated situation in which there is even more room for disagreement, if not conflict, between the different parties.
	In all the dealings that I have had with educational psychologists, I have found the service that they provide to be greatly undervalued and very important. At the end of the day, children who have difficulties in the schooling system clearly have to be looked at and helped by educational psychologists, and there is always a risk that the service might be spread a bit thinly. The Government can therefore be proud of anything that can be done to ensure that our children are given the appropriate help in a transparent and fair manner, and anything that my hon. Friend has to say about that will be gratefully received by the whole House.

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for his intervention in it.
	In opening, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome informed the House that debates such as these are infrequent, so I thank him for giving us this opportunity to address this important subject. We are talking about an important group of professionals who make a vital contribution to our education service and, more generally, to children and young people in education. I certainly concur with what both he and my hon. Friend said about these issues coming up in our own constituencies, and all hon. Members will be aware of cases in which failings or weaknesses in the service have undermined the education and upbringing of children and young people in our constituencies.
	Educational psychologists play a major part in helping to identify the learning needs of individual children and young people, including those who have special educational needs, and a critical role in supporting local authorities and schools in meeting those identified needs. They are a key resource in building the capacity of the education system to respond to children's learning needs.
	At the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman addressed some broader challenges that we face in relation to assessment and special educational needs. I want say a few things about the broad picture with respect to SEN before addressing the specific issues that he raised in the main part of his speech about the role and training of educational psychologists.
	The theme of building up capacity is central to our recently published document on special educational needs, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", the new strategy on SEN, and to the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the associated legislation currently going through Parliament. The SEN strategy sets out our long-term vision and an ambitious programme of sustained action nationally and locally to enable all children with SEN to realise their potential. We are seeking to recognise some of the weaknesses and inconsistencies to which he referred. It is not about changing the legal framework, but about setting out ways in which real effect can be given to it, so that we make sure that the current system works as effectively as possible to meet the needs of children.
	There are four key themes to which I will refer briefly: early intervention; removing barriers to learning; raising expectations and achievement; and delivering improvements in partnership. Each of those is relevant to some of the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	With respect to early intervention, we want to ensure that children with learning difficulties can receive the help that they need as soon as possible, and that parents of those children have access to suitable services, including child care. The strategy therefore seeks to embed in national practice the principles of the early support pilot programme for very young children and their families, and to implement a new strategy for child care for children with special educational needs, including working with voluntary organisations to consider the feasibility of establishing a national early intervention centre of excellence to use evidence about what works to inform practice. This emphasis on early intervention provides a real opportunity for educational psychologists to spend more time working with schools, working with individual pupils, and supporting teachers and other staff in putting in place programmes and interventions to address the individual needs of each child at the earliest possible stage.
	The second strand in that strategy is removing barriers to learning. Children's learning difficulties often arise because the learning environment is not suitable. In developing the kind of inclusive practice about which the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke, we seek to meet the needs of every child. A new inclusion development programme, bringing together education, health, social care and the voluntary sector, will therefore develop effective approaches to provision for children with special educational needs. Initially, the programme will focus on autistic spectrum disorder, behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, speech, language and communication difficulties, and moderate learning difficulties. We are developing proposals to improve the quality of education for children with more severe behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, including addressing the regional planning of provision and providing practical guidance on reducing reliance on high-cost placements. We will also be developing minimum standards for SEN advisory and support services.
	In terms of raising expectations and achievement, we have set out a strategic approach to developing the skills of staff working with children with SEN, and we are discussing with the Teacher Training Agency and others practical ways of ensuring that teacher training, induction and continuous professional development provide a good grounding in SEN.
	We are sharpening the focus on SEN within our national primary and key stage 3 strategies, ensuring that we make the very best use of the data available and breaking down barriers between the Government and the voluntary and private sectors to improve the quality of planning to support young people in making the transition between the different stages of education and adult life.
	Finally, we seek to deliver improvements in partnership working. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, despite some progress in recent years, children still face a postcode lottery in terms of the support available. That applies with respect to educational psychologists and more broadly to special educational needs. That is why the strategy contains a number of measures to promote greater consistency, including a team of SEN advisers working with local authorities to provide support and challenge, and a key role for our network of SEN regional partnerships in spreading effective practice. We are also building on the opportunities provided by the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and the Children Bill to integrate education, health and social care around the needs of children and families. The children's national service framework will set national outcome standards for health and social services, and we seek to align it with the SEN strategy through a joint implementation plan.
	I do not at all underestimate the scale of the challenge that we face, which was well set out in both speeches earlier. I do believe that our strategy, combined with our work on inclusion in the White Paper and the Bill, will provide a real opportunity to get system-wide improvement for all children with special educational needs.

David Heath: I wholly welcome the framework that the Minister has set out, particularly the fact that teacher training will include specific training for children with SEN. Does he accept, however, that most of it cannot work without sufficient trained educational psychologists to underpin the system? That is why recruitment and retention are critical to the strategy's success and why early decisions are necessary.

Stephen Twigg: I am coming to that point, and I certainly accept that it is important that we should have the right people in place to ensure that the strategy can be effective and successful, and consistently so across the country.
	Educational psychologists have a central role to play in working with children with SEN. Their work on statutory assessments and the drawing up of statements is a key function, but they also have an important contribution to make in the area of early intervention and providing support when a child's needs are first identified. I have already addressed early intervention with respect to educational psychology. Four years ago, we published the report of the educational psychology working group, together with a major piece of research on how services operated and how they were seen by their users. That work identified core functions in the areas of working with early years settings, schools and multi-agency teams. It also identified critical factors for success and pointed to good practice. It recommended that all educational psychology services should: apply psychology to promote the attainment and healthy emotional development of children and young people from 0 to 19 years; ensure that early intervention is a priority; be linked to local authority strategies to meet local and national priorities for raising standards in schools and supporting inclusion; be delivered in school settings as well as in local authority and family settings; focus on assessment, intervention and consultation; develop multi-agency approaches to support schools and parents; and be accessible to users independently of schools.
	The research confirmed what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said about parents and schools finding educational psychologists a hugely valuable resource. Parents see them as a key link to the school and other agencies and placed particular value on home visiting.
	Teachers and SENCOs value educational psychologists for the advice that they give on strategies for the classroom and for providing practical demonstrations, and see them as having an important contribution to make to training. Similarly, educational psychologists make a key contribution to work with children who have, or who are at risk of developing, behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. They are a vital component of the behaviour and education support teams.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on the numbers of educational psychologists working in our communities and, in particular, the numbers who are being trained to enter work in future years. I am pleased to say that the data that we have available, which we collect from local authorities, suggest that there has been an increase in recent years in the total number of full-time equivalent educational psychologists. In 1997, the figure was 1,768. In 2003, it was 2,026, a not insignificant increase.
	I absolutely accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's central point that although that is progress, a great deal more needs to be done if we are to meet all the needs that we know exist in the communities that we serve. The figures that he set out are correct. Unfortunately, the Local Government Association decided last year to reduce the number of funded training places to 110. We accept the figure of 150, which the hon. Gentleman cites, as ideal, and we have welcomed the LGA's more recent decision effectively to reverse that cut and to take the figure back up to 130. That is clearly better than 110, but we still believe that 150 is the figure for which we should aim. I shall address that issue right at the end of my remarks.
	I turn briefly to the work of the working group, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which brings together all the key people working in this sphere: the Department for Education and Skills, local government and the various associations representing psychology, and educational psychologists in particular. The working group commits us to working with that range of interests to review the initial training of educational psychologists and their continuing professional development. That work has been carried on through a smaller sub-group of the original working group, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed to its deliberations.
	It is from that working group that the new training route that the hon. Gentleman described has emerged. Discussion has focused in particular on the need to develop a new entry training route for educational psychologists. The existing route is lengthy, at eight years, and its arrangements are not wholly in line with those for comparable professions such as clinical psychology. That is viewed as contributing to some of the recruitment problems in the profession. We have to be careful on that, because the Government are not the direct employer, but we see ourselves as having an important role in facilitating bringing people together to do the greater investigative work.
	We have commissioned, as the hon. Gentleman described, two detailed implementation studies on the practicalities of introducing a slimmed-down entry route that would extend over six, rather than eight, years. That has been widely discussed and consulted on, and the six-year model has secured clear, unmistakable endorsement during the consultations run by the Department. The studies have drawn together the views of all the key interested parties, including the Association of Educational Psychologists, the British Psychology Association and some of the training providers in higher education.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud questioned whether there was a danger that that approach could lead to a two-tier system, or that there might be some contention over that change. From everything that I have seen, I am reassured that the professionals working in the field, as well as local government, the universities and we ourselves, are confident that that does not need to be the case, and that the new system can be made to work. The working group has considered issues such as the status of educational psychologists in training, different regional arrangements, the nature of work placements and associated supervision, and the funding needed to underpin a revised scheme. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has put his case very strongly today.
	The studies confirm that implementing the new route will entail significant additional expenditure. Officials previously informed the various parties with whom we have been working that the case for such expenditure needs to be considered in the context of the 2004 spending review. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the uncertainty that that creates, and I am not going to deny that such uncertainty exists in the system. What is important is that we get matters right. I can give him an assurance today that although I am not in a position to go beyond the terms of the letter of a couple of months ago that he read out to the House, we are considering the final allocation of the spending review settlement in the light of our overall priorities for education and for children's services, which are now within the specific remit of the Department for Education and Skills.
	Unlike other Government Departments, we received our overall envelope of money in the Budget, which means that we are planning at a different stage from other Government Departments. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised today will contribute to our consideration of our spending priorities. Much as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to go beyond that, I am not in a position to do so today. What I can say is that we take this issue very seriously, and we will decide the long-term position within the next few months.
	I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting this issue on the record today via an Adjournment debate. He has demonstrated the strength of his case, and the issue that we are addressing is how we can make the very best use of some of our finest professionals to meet the needs of individual children and young people. All three of us who have spoken in this debate have paid tribute to the excellent work done by educational psychologists, which I want to put on the record clearly and explicitly. I hope that, as we move forward, we can ensure both a sufficient supply of good, high-quality people to do this work, and that the very real need and demand out there is met in a consistent and inclusive way that gives the very best possible start in life to children and young people in communities throughout the country. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put that on the record today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.